CMU Professor's Rebuttal Against RIAA Propaganda

jsc writes "On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an article by Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, stating that university students are hijacking Internet2 to pirate copyrighted works, and schools who don't actively combat file-sharing are teaching their students bad values like "acceptance of theft". The Post-Gazette didn't let Sherman get away with it, though... Today they published a letter to the paper from Roger Dannenberg, a professor of Computer Science and Music at Carnegie Mellon University, reminding everyone how past/present behavior of the RIAA and its members is an even worse model of values..."

Comments

Robin Hood

[fembots]

Is he saying stealing from thieves (or unethical businesses) is not so bad?

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Re:Robin Hood

[cdrguru]

Absolutely. The internet "sharing" of anything that can be "shared" means nobody with anything digital is going to be able to derive any money from it. This is the target that many claim is where they want things to go.

I don't think they have thought about where this ends up. I don't think the end of the road is certain, but I'll bet it means curtailed development of entertainment in digital form.

Re:Robin Hood

[Tim5309]

I agree that this does seem like the standard "to steal from a thief is no crime" fallacy"

If you'll stop your members from stealing from my friends, and then study some history, maybe I can help you.

The professor's arguments are valid in that the recording industry has commited sins of its own against creativity, but to say that stealing music over I2 is therefore ok simply does not follow.

Re:Robin Hood

[iminplaya]

I don't think the end of the road is certain, but I'll bet it means curtailed development of entertainment in digital form.

If paper, film, and vinyl are the only media proven to outlast even current copyright law, then it's good enough for me...

Re:Robin Hood

[Catamaran]

I agree that this does seem like the standard "to steal from a thief is no crime" fallacy"

You can call it a fallacy, and from a legal pov you are right, but I think the vast majority would consider it a lesser crime than stealing from a non-thief.

Re:Robin Hood

[MrBigInThePants]

What you say is true, however the RIAA are pretending to take the moral high ground here. Most of their arguments center on protecting artist's rights and being able to foster creativity.

While the theft is certainly illegal, and nobody I have read about says it is, the RIAA's position is exceptionally disingenuous for the reasons mentioned.
They argue that law and government should protect them with MORE (very important point) legislation and they have got much of it already. (DMCA) They argue that they should be able to breech people's privacy, destroy whole internet technologies and dictate to the electronics industry what they can and cannot produce.

They argue this because they pretend to defend the artist rights and musical freedom as they have always done. This is obviously wrong.

The question is not nearly as simple as you have made it out to be. It is not a question of "enforcement of current law", but far more insidious.

Having said all that, a great comment on mp3 theft:
"Stealing music is like taking candy from a...large, fat rich person."

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he is saying that the RIAA, a group corporations convicted of multiple federal crimes, is not the best source of lectures on ethics.

Lead by example, not threats.

Re:Robin Hood

[DecayCell]

No, he's merely saying that until the RIAA starts sticking to its standards, they're not going to get any help from him on his campus.
Fair enough, I believe.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

He is saying:

1) Traditionally, RIAA has stifled innovation by using dubious means, and they have always been scared of new technology, and have tried to prevent onset of technology using monopolistic and legal measures
2) RIAA isn't the right guardian for the right of musicians. One ought to see it more as a consortium of big-label music companies, and nothing more.

Re:Robin Hood

[ashmedai]

Bingo. It's not that stealing is okay if it's from a thief. It's that it's really stupid for a morally bankrupt group to complain about every individual incidence of copyright infringement when they can't even prove the act deprived them of a potential sale they say they deserve on the basis of junk science and fabricated statistics. It's that the amount of lies and slander they propigate in attempt to sway public opinion in favor of their greed-motivated witch hunt is just plain horrific. And then there's the issue of the Orwellian legislation they push through with the help of the government that we're supposed to be able to trust to protect us from such things, as if Homeland Security wasn't edging towards a police state already on its own.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded you up. You're wrong, but you said it in a non-inflamatory way, and that doesn't happen often enough.

Re:Robin Hood

[kizzbizz]

Is he saying stealing from thieves (or unethical businesses) is not so bad?

Not quite. He is merely saying that if the RIAA want's to enlist the aid of colleges to combat piracy (Which is CLEARLY the intent of the RIAA's original letter), they need to clean up their act first.

Speficially, the Professors closing coment may sound like he is trying to argue that stealing from the "bad guy" is acceptable, this is a false assumption. He is merely stating that if they want HIS help, they should start holding up their end of the bargin when it comes to the recording artists, nothing more.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

and by posting to the thread, even as an anonymous coward, the moderation was immediatly undone.

Re:Robin Hood

[BCW2]

Just remind the Congresscritters that the RIAA has said some of the exact same things before. I have heard some quotes by the RIAA taken word for word from their testimony before Congress on another technology that was going to starve all artists and kill the industry. They were talking about cassette tape recorders in the early seventies!

Really hurt them, huh!

Same crap, different century.

Re: Robin Hood

[Alwin Henseler]

I don't think the end of the road is certain, but I'll bet it means curtailed development of entertainment in digital form.

Sure, the end of the road is pretty certain, and goes something like this:

• If content is digital, it can be copied easily.
• If it can be copied, it will be copied.
• If people want a copy, they can get a copy (and not pay, if they don't feel like it).
• The content producer can make money by selling physical media (with the content), licensing, online sales, whatever. If it's made cheaper, more media/licenses will be bought, but less profit per sale. If more expensive, more profit per sale, but smaller numbers sold. Optimum somewhere in between.
• DRM (+ lawyers) ultimately change nothing of the above, only serve to push the numbers a bit in one direction or another. Oh yeah, and
• DRM and lawyers add an additional cost for everybody.

So musicians will continue to make music, people will keep listening to whatever they like (and spend money on that, when they feel like it), some industry folks will keep trying to squeeze money from all this, DRM will continue to be broken, and some lawyers will receive fat paychecks. The most succesful businesses will be those that adapt to new circumstances.

And "stealing" only applies to physical items, not when dealing with all-digital content. Use "copyright infringment", "illegal copying" or "unauthorized distribution" instead. You don't 'own' an image, you may own some rights to decide who is allowed to copy that image, and under what conditions. These rights may vary from country to country, and aren't absolute either (see: fair use).

Oh and BTW: "illegal" is not the same as "wrong".

Re:Robin Hood

[whoever57]

Is he saying stealing from thieves (or unethical businesses) is not so bad?

No, he is saying that he should not expect any help in promoting the RIAA's agenda while the RIAA's members fail to pay the money owed to actual artists.

There is a big difference IMHO between actively supporting infringement (not theft) and merely failing to promote the RIAA's views and aims.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

It's that it's really stupid for a morally bankrupt group to complain about every individual incidence of copyright infringement when they can't even prove the act deprived them of a potential sale they say they deserve on the basis of junk science and fabricated statistics.

Replace "copyright infringment" with "outsourcing" and "sale" with "job," it doesn't sound like junk science and fabricated statistics anymore. The ability to measure potential is a difficult, even if 1% of the people who download a song or movie would have purchased it, it is still a large amount of money lost.

And then there's the issue of the Orwellian legislation they push through with the help of the government that we're supposed to be able to trust to protect us from such things, as if Homeland Security wasn't edging towards a police state already on its own.

So long as we keep reelecting those people, why should we expect things to change? The only way to combat an organization like the RIAA is to organize a large group of people. Votes > Money.

Re:Robin Hood

[Xyrus]

I would just like to remind people that this is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, not THEFT.

Big difference.

~X~

Re:Robin Hood

[SnowZero]

Mod parent up!

Prof. Dannenburg never said stealing was ok, he simply said he's not going to help a group that refuses to do what it claims is its mission (help artists). The RIAA isn't only saying stealing is wrong, they are saying that colleges MUST help them, for the sake of all the poor artists. The professor is responding that "If you don't help artists why should I help you?".

P.S. Carnegie Mellon is already not very P2P-friendly: Computing services warns you in several places that if you violate copyright you could get in trouble with the law. There are people on campus paid (presumably by a certain industry group) to rat out other students on the network. It looks like they have all the tools they need, so why should I help them? It's not my job to police artificially low speeding limits or badly placed stop signs.

Re:Robin Hood

[plague3106]

Call it a fallacy if you will, but I'm not going to cry for a theif that is later robbed. Sorry, I don't believe you can really argue that its wrong to do so.

Re:Robin Hood

[TheGratefulNet]

parent: good summary, short and sweet.

two things: moral high ground (riaa/mpaa are good guys; your college students are being bad, please stop them) and also the fact that colleged (and the legal system) should NOT be used to help protect one business' outdated sales model.

confusing morality with their profit stream IS the problem. please help to separate the two.

its fine to complain that your business is losing money. the buggywhip companies went thru that - and so will you, riaa/mpaa. could I suggest getting a NEW business model? laying off some of your staff? changing your price and distribution models?

its quite another thing to act all high and holy try to convince us that you are standing for Truth and The American Way. you're not. you're simply a business like all the rest - a business that is in dire need of a major revision.

if you want to complain about lost profits, STOP BRIBING CONGRESS AND LAWMAKERS! there, that'll save you more money than yelling at pimple-faced teenagers.

Re: Robin Hood

[NixLuver]

Hear, Hear!

The current music industry is a buggywhip plant asking the federal courts to pass laws making it illegal for Ford to sell Mustangs without buggywhips.

The traditional cost of media is largely distribution costs (if you believe the RIAA). The cost of distribution in electronic format is largely and essentially nil (I know the cost of bandwidth; but I could distribute 4000 copies of a 3 MB song per month for $16.95, or 4 tenths of a cent per copy). The largest costs associated with doing business in the digital format is covering all of the agreements with the traditional distribution services so that they can keep making and selling buggywhips regardless of their objective usefulness and value. As you say, the company that will out is the one that adjusts to the market and provides 1) a simple, pain-free process of acquisition, and 2) a cost that is low enough that copyright infringement is more trouble than it's worth. Who is going to go through the trouble of ripping and distributing songs that can be downloaded for, say, 25 cents?

Re:Robin Hood

[plague3106]

Replace "copyright infringment" with "outsourcing" and "sale" with "job," it doesn't sound like junk science and fabricated statistics anymore. The ability to measure potential is a difficult, even if 1% of the people who download a song or movie would have purchased it, it is still a large amount of money lost.

Bull. People currently employeed are laid off to be replaced by workers oversees. A lost 'sale' might never have been a sale, you can't honestly know for sure. There's a huge difference.

Replace "copyright infringment" with "outsourcing" and "sale" with "job," it doesn't sound like junk science and fabricated statistics anymore. The ability to measure potential is a difficult, even if 1% of the people who download a song or movie would have purchased it, it is still a large amount of money lost.

You mean as long as the system is currently rigged to elect a caniditate that really is the same as his oponent? There really are much fewer differences between the Ds and Rs than people would like to believe.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is not true, because I've done it before.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is a proven fact that the more file sharing that happens, the higher record sales go. When file sharing is stopped by shutting down major outlets on the internet, then sales slip. Go look at the numbers for yourself.

Re:Robin Hood

[MrBigInThePants]

You mean as long as the system is currently rigged to elect a caniditate that really is the same as his oponent? To quote Noam Chomsky:

He acknowledges that the election comes down to a choice between the two factions of the business party,

Of course most people are blind to this...

Re:Robin Hood

[lahvak]

It doesn't make it legal, but it does make it accepted by public. There is whole bunch of laws like this. Driving too fast is illegal, yet everybody does it, and nobody cares. Smoking pot is illegal, but lot of people do it, and nobody cares. In some places, jaywalking is illegal, but nobody cares.

Yes, it may be illegal to "steal" from RIAA, but who cares? People are fed up with RIAA, and when they claim that p2p networks will drive them out of business, most people will just say "good riddance!"

Re:Robin Hood

[servognome]

Bull. People currently employeed are laid off to be replaced by workers oversees. A lost 'sale' might never have been a sale, you can't honestly know for sure. There's a huge difference.
There is no difference. Just because some jobs are lost domestically, and some jobs are created overseas, does not mean the overseas jobs are direct replacements for domestic ones. Some jobs are replacements, just like some downloads replace sales; the problem is you can't acurately quantify either one.
The RIAA lives in a dream world if they believe that 100% of downloads are lost sales. Just like those complaining about outsourcing, are incorrect in assuming 100% of jobs for American companies created in India and China are replacement for domestic jobs. China and India represent huge potential and growing markets, it makes sense that American companies would want to increase their presence.

Re:Robin Hood

[Artifakt]

All the tools they need indeed....
The Law now gives a possible 5x multiple to fines for "willful' copyright infringement (US $30,000 max/incident becomes $150,000 by a willfulness test.)
Most people who have been wronged are lucky if they qualify for a 3x multiple in a lawsuit, and have to prove something much tougher, like criminal and not just simple negligence to get it.
So let's assume I agree completely the RIAA is being wronged by file sharers. Even so, why should I go out of my way to help them more, when I'm already paying for selective law enforcement that gives them extra breaks like this, and I could be helping some other victim of some other wrong who isn't already being offered such a good deal to help set things right?

Re:Robin Hood

[Kaorimoch]

The Orwellian legislation being thrown through government annoys me to no end. Copyright should be about making our lives better and richer, balancing the needs of owners and the public and now it is all about maximising the value of these copyrighted "assets" such as Mickey Mouse and the Happy Birthday song.

The public is losing the benefit of copyright legislation as it slowly becomes more restrictive, monopolised and criminalised. The Government is failing its mission to look after the public's interests. There's no money in making it more public-friendly anyway.

Re:Robin Hood

[Bullfish]

Frankly the RIAA are starting to remind me of the "a commie under every bed" mentality.

Re:Robin Hood

[evoltap]

"This is the target that many claim is where they want things to go."

Totally. As a musician and a music appreciater, I would like to see things progress towards more sharing. If music was cheaper, (say 7 cents a song) and the service was comprehensive and easier than "illegal" sharing, I think it would be plenty of revenue to support the artists and the staff required to run the download/distribution system.
Of course this would require major legislation with some sort of sunset, gov-subsidized industry shutdown. Can't say I see that happening anytime soon.........

So f**k 'em. Musicians can always choose to not deal with the industry. They're digging their own grave.....while they sue and promote artists that lip-sync, the real artists and fans will find another way to enjoy music and make a living. When I see a really good live show, I gladly support the artist and buy their product.
It costs about $2 and under to print a single CD with artwork.
Why then don't CD's cost $4? Wouldn't more people throw down $4 over $16.95? Then charge about a buck an album for compressed downloads.
In the end, I think more art being propagated by the internet is a good thing for humanity.......but of course, the end of the road isn't certain.

Re:Robin Hood

[macdaddy357]

And Cary Sherman telling people to respect artists is like Jack The Ripper telling people to respect prostitutes.

Re:Robin Hood

[Moofie]

I'd certainly say that stealing from "starving artists" is worse than stealing from "fat cat recording industry flacks".

The cost to the artist of music piracy is lost in the noise. It's almost un-measurable. The cost to the RIAA's members is not of interest to me. If they can't make their business model work, they need to change it.

Re:Robin Hood

[saberint]

Personally i think the issue is really moot. Copying has always existed. Look at the history of vcr's and tape decks. We as a populance have always copied stuff. Im not sure about the rest of you out there, but if I find a song/band i like, i then buy thier albums. Not because it is the right or wrong thing to do, but so the artist can have the money to keep creating, which in the long term benifits me, the listener. Of course there has been times when I have no money to do so, but over here in Australia the average CD cost us $30. Which to me is rather on the high side, and bugger all of that money gets back to the artist.

On that note, a quick story....
A few years back a friend of mine was in a band, on thier first album release they made apporx 6 mill for the record company, they got around 200,000 each (4 members in the band). When it came to the next album the were bullied into spending a million on the recording etc, the album was a flop, and the guys in the band had to pay back the money lost, thus after 5 yrs hard work they were all left with owing around 100,000 each. Thats the morality of record companies :(

Re:Robin Hood

[saberint]

haha yes its a biiger fine and u do more time for copyright infringement!

Re:Robin Hood

[Khyber]

"could I suggest getting a NEW business model? laying off some of your staff? changing your price and distribution models?"

Seeing as the RIAA/MPAA don't actually do any recording or moviemakng whatsoever, and they're just association groups, I don't think it's up to them to decide pricing and distribution, that's most likely up to the actual production companies.

Re:Robin Hood

[rkuris]

Seems like this is just another logical fallacy:

appeal to popularity

Re:Robin Hood

[superpulpsicle]

RIAA never had any intention of giving you value for your dollar. No group has stolen from consumers more than the RIAA. They pushed for bad music with the conspiracy notion that you had to buy more CDs, cause the ones in your hands have 1 good track out of 20.

Re:Robin Hood

[RichardX]

Re: your friend's band. That's a surprisingly common story. An amazing number of top 10 artists end up in horrible levels of debt to their record companies, and even declaring bankrupcy.

There's a great article on the subject somewhere, written IIRC by one of those artists.. I can't remember where I saw it or who it was by, but if anyone knows the article I mean, a link would be much appreciated.

Re: Robin Hood

[aggieben]

Oh and BTW: "illegal" is not the same as "wrong".

I couldn't disagree more. In my view, "wrong" is a superset of "illegal".

Re:Robin Hood

[bechthros]

Thank you thank you thank you for saying this. I've been repeating the same story over and over and it's good to see I'm not the only person here old enough to remember when it was illegal to copy a record you bought onto a cassette. Hell, consumer-grade tape recorders didn't exist! I remember the first tape recorder I ever saw, saying "gee, a record button... that's neat..." at the tender age of 7.

Hey all you pro-RIAA people - ever see an 8-track cartridge recorder? Ever wonder why not?

Re:Robin Hood

[kizzbizz]

In addition, many people have the false belief that everything the Government does is in the best interest of every individual, something which unfortunatley just isn't true. Sure, we could assume that the laws against marijuana are well founded, but I could give you at least 3 positive effects of of pot right off the top of my head (Hemp's use as a natural fiber in cloth and paper, the incredable nutritional value of cannibis seeds, and the pain reliving effects of THC). Just because something is deemed illegal does not automatically mean that it is "wrong".

Of course, there are those natural moral assumptions of what is wrong- you cannot really make the argument that rape and murder are acceptable. But for some laws such as speed limits (which is a multi-million dollar business for state coffiers and insurance companies alike), the criminalization of marijuana, and gay marriage legislation, the Government does NOT have your best interests at heart. That is just how things are.

I am not aruging that p2p is "right", but to portray file sharers as nothing more than common criminals says nothing of the corruption within the RIAA. Unfortunatley, lawmakers are imposing more outrageous punishments for filesharers while helping to protect the corrupt nature of the RIAA on the individual artists.

In this way, you can't label something as "wrong" just because it happens to be "illegal" without looking at the bigger picture.

Re: Robin Hood

[laughingcoyote]

So you state, that during the period during which slavery was legal, and freeing a slave without his/her owner's permission was considered theft, it was wrong for the Underground Railroad to operate, in addition to illegal? That since it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, it was wrong? That since it was illegal for the 13 colonies to rebel against English authority, that it was wrong? That since dissent in totalitarian countries is illegal, it is wrong?

Given that, how is any system but totalitarianism a workable one, if we take the premise that the law is always right?

Re:Robin Hood

[TheGratefulNet]

I don't think it's up to them to decide pricing and distribution, that's most likely up to the actual production companies.

right. they're more into the muscle side. ..who could have known the Sopranos had such ties to music?

Re:Robin Hood

[StormKrow]

I look at it this way.

A theif has no right to complain if someone steals from him.

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

"666" will be an issue someday and refusing the mark will be illegal...

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Janis Ian wrote an excellent article http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml on the business practices of the recording industry.

Re:Robin Hood

[Tim C]

Same crap, different century.

Yes, because copying an album to tape for a couple of friends is indistinguishable from putting it on a p2p network and offering it up to anyone who wants it, anywhere in the world.

It's an order of magnitude different. With p2p I can potentially "give" thousands of people a copy; with home taping that number drops to a small handful. Even if they then give copies to their friends, we still don't have anything like the distribution potential of p2p/irc/usenet/etc.

I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA's arguments, but you really can't compare the current situation to home taping.

Re:Robin Hood

[masklinn]

The internet "sharing" of anything that can be "shared" means nobody with anything digital is going to be able to derive any money from it.

How about stopping smoking beavers?
Last time i checked, quite a lot of software companies were making profit, and yet their products are purely digital and shareable...

Heck, last time i checked there were even people using P2P as an artistic discovery mean, paying for the full quality physical medium only if they considered the production worth it (be it a film or music), do you believe it?
I think those people should be sent to Guantanamo, you're not supposed to discover or try after all, as a consumer you're supposed to buy, trash your mediums and buy again ain't you?

Re:Robin Hood

[izzo nizzo]

But think of how many CDs people would buy if they cost $5. Or how many movies, if you could buy them for the rental price. As long as the new formats aren't cracked too quickly, I think media sellers can continue to profit if they price their product correctly. Even if downloads are good enough for home, cars and cell phones might still provide good reason to throw down a few dollars for media. Honestly, if CDs cost $5, I don't think the RIAA would be having a problem with downloading, especially now that kaZaa and Bit Torrent have been dealt such blows by the feds. But rather that change their prices, they are suing us for not wanting to pay them, and for what: they put repetitive bullshit on the radio and don't give us a chance to hear the music we care about!

Re:Robin Hood

[Tim C]

Yes, but

a) a lesser crime is still a crime
b) imagine I made a slippery slope argument about ignoring a law in some cases making it more acceptable to ignore it in others, and/or to ignore other less than popular laws

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

2) RIAA isn't the right guardian for the right of musicians. One ought to see it more as a consortium of big-label music companies, and nothing more.

This is a big one. People keep acting like the RIAA is there to look out for artists. They aren't. They are there to look out for record companies. Whether or not those labels are looking out for their artists is up for debate...

Re:Robin Hood

[Badfysh]

You're absolutely right, I had to back you up on that.

Rating system at odds with RIAA's claim of lost sales

UK music sees record album sales

Re:Robin Hood

[Tim C]

But for some laws such as speed limits (which is a multi-million dollar business for state coffiers and insurance companies alike)

Oh come on - the faster you drive, the more likely you are to have an accident, and the more serious that accident will be. Beyond a certain speed, a car simply isn't safe, but even below that your reactions may not be fast enough to avert danger.

I'm not saying that I agree with any particular speed limit, but (imho) there must *be* speed limits, or you will get people driving far faster than is safe and killing themselves and other people.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he is saying people in glass house shouldn't walk around naked.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

While we are on the subject of logical fallacies, perhaps you could explain to the disingenuous bastards at the RIAA the difference between "copyright infringement" and "theft".

Re:Robin Hood

[badfish99]

Ah, but it's not stealing, is it. The thief has still got all the music, even after you've taken it.

This is the first time in history that we've ever had any valuable goods that could be duplicated for free like this. That's why people are still trying to get their heads round the issues involved.

Re:Robin Hood

[xtracto]

For the love of god it is */^^^^N O T^^^^/* called STEALING it is COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT!!!!

Re:Robin Hood

[fossilstar]

I was listening to a local "christian" broadcast station the other day, and they aired a PSA about file-sharing, reminding parents to make sure their kids aren't sharing files. Period. It made no mention at all of copyright, the fact that most "up and coming" bands allow free trade of their music online, etc. Much less any mention of "fair use."

They referred to it exclusively as "theft" and "stealing." The message to parents was: if your kid shares any file of any type anytime ever, you are harboring a criminal.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

And in further news, two wrongs do make a right.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Around here, the people who drive fast generally drives better too. Not all of them, but most. The people that stay close to the speed limits change lane without checking if the lane are free, they stay in the leftmost lane long after passing someone, drive so close to the one in front of them that just taking your foot of the gas might lead to a collission, and generally drive like they were asleep.

The people who go between 1.5x and 2x the speed limit are not asleep. They know exactly where everyone else is before changing lanes, they keep safe braking distance, and if someone else is driving even faster than them, they get out of the leftmost lane, so that he can pass.

Judging from how people drive, I'd say that the first group are the most likely to get into accidents. The second group however will be involved in the most dangerous accidents, because when it does go wrong despite better driving, the forces are much bigger.

Re:Robin Hood

[BRonsk]

but to say that stealing music over I2 is therefore ok simply does not follow You're not getting it. He does not say that it is ok to steal music. The RIAA called at him to help stop I2 piracy, he is saying: Why should I help one evil against another? Prove me you're good and all, and I'll help you. Until then I won't interfere. I think he is ultimately right.

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

IP arguments are interesting, but they fail to sometimes hammer home what is somewhat obvious.

Anytime you have digital IP, you have the potential for one persons work to be used by thousands or even millions, which is why FOSS is doing reasonably well these days.

The Canadian solution of taxing media seems to be the right idea I.E. Compensate artists and not music companies based on the estimated popularity at any particular time.

Of course then you have the issue of how to deal with morally objectionable material. I for one wouldn't care to allow porn to be paid for like that. I suppose you could let them fend for themselves.

At any rate, seldom is any solution perfect, and even the idea of basing it on popularity is inadequate since things like small pieces of software are popular but may be easy to make, while others may be quite hard. Some other estimate of value would need to be factored in.

The basic idea would be to let people use, whatever they want to use, and then establish various organizations to insure those who are interested in receiving fair compensation are using money from taxes. This would add some overhead for the organization, and remove some for not needing big companies that live on IP for years without making anything knew. More importantly people could simply choose what is truly best be it software or music or whatever and get on with their lives.

Of course, even if such a system were put in place it would undoubtably be corrupted before the ink dries since that is the nature of such things. After all, companies X product is vital to the economy, prevents terrorism and helps prevent the death of kittens so of course it must have a larger percentage of the pie right?

Re:Robin Hood

[Lord Flipper]

. ..who could have known the Sopranos had such ties to music?

...ummm, anyone who has ever been a member of the Musician's Union in North America?

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes to 8-Track recorders. We had one in the UK in the late 70's I remember it. I think it was TEAC (but may be wrong). 18 inches long 10 deep 5 high. Front loading silver fascia and fake wood sides. Was a seperate attached to our integrated record player/radio.

We also had a personal 8-track player that looked like a the instrument that original star trek away teams would carry on a shoulder strap (at least that what we would steal it for)

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be correct.

However, a *legal* way to implement what you seek is to cut of the revenue stream by ignoring overpriced products through coordinated boycott - versus stealing them.

Otherwise, what you want will probably eventually happen, it will just take longer, and probably be more orderly than the chaos that would ensue from such a boycott.

thesyntheticbob

Re:Robin Hood

[Bazzalisk]

Driving too fast is illegal, yet everybody does it, and nobody cares. Not everybody does it, and some people do care. You're right that this has become "acceptable" in society due to some misconception that driving is a right rather than a privilege. Revoking a few more licenses for life would help correct people of that error - and here in the UK at least this does look like it might be beginning to happen.

Re:Robin Hood

[Bazzalisk]

The statistics don't seem to agree with you though, in general far more accidents occur when people are driving above the speed-limit than below. (In Britain, where we have slightly higher limits than in the US, I have no idea what the figures in America are like)

Re:Robin Hood

[Bazzalisk]

And in further news, two wrongs do make a right.

They don't, but three lefts do.

Re:Robin Hood

[NickFitz]

The moderation is undone, and you don't get the mod point back. You might have assumed that, because your mod point didn't come back after posting AC, the moderation still applied. It doesn't.

Re: Robin Hood

[mkw87]

What ever happened to the days of supply and demand? Just last spring I took a college economics class and they still stressed that the american market(s) depend on supply and demand. I drew multiple useless graphs about it. He never did mention the market that the RIAA is involved in though.....maybe their graph looks a bit different. All I know is that american markets are supposed to rely on supply and demand and the RIAA is trying to find a way around this. There is a demand for music, but people don't want to pay 15-25 dollars per cd, and I can't blame them when they can get it for completely free elsewhere (of course you are most likely selling your soul to the devil to download music). If the demand is for CD's at a lower price, then they should be supplied at a lower price. That is how american economy works - well is supposed to work, *cough* damn geoge bush.

Re: Robin Hood

[dwarfking]

And "stealing" only applies to physical items, not when dealing with all-digital content.

I keep seeing statements like this when discussing the issue of making digital copies of music or other files and giving them away. Not trying to start a flamewar here, but just because it is digital and nothing physical changed hands, does not mean it is not stealing.

It is stealing. Consider the situation. If there is a CD you like and it isn't online, you go buy it. The seller makes X dollars. Your friend likes the CD too, but instead of buying it, he burns a copy of yours. You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.

Now, some people will say "well I won't pay for it but will take it if free", but that is a diversion. The fact is if you take a copy of the merchandise and do not pay the seller you have infact stolen dollars out of the seller's pocket. If you say you wouldn't have paid for it, then you should never have taken it.

So, just because it is digitally reproducible does not just mean 'copyright infringement'. It is theft, maybe not of the actual media, but of the profit the seller SHOULD have been allowed to make on the item.

And don't confuse the issue with who the seller is. The current contracts for music make the record labels the sellers. Whether you like them or not, you do not have the right to steal their money.

Re:Robin Hood

[lahvak]

I don't know about UK, I never drove there (you have a nice train system and I like trains, besides, you are driving on the wrong side of the road :)), but try driving on any US highway and count people who follow the speed limit when there are no cops in sight. You may see one or two such cars in an hour. I don't mean driving like maniac, what I mean is driving 80 when the limit is 70. Most people in this country will tell you that's ok.

Re:Robin Hood

[Spad]

Moderated: +1 Depressing

Re:Robin Hood

[Dashing Leech]

"The moderation is undone, and you don't get the mod point back."

That depends on how you do it. If someone logs out and re-opens /. as a true AC, it has no way to know it's the same person as who did the modding. If they just hit the "Post as AC" option, then you're probably right.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

its quite another thing to act all high and holy try to convince us that you are standing for Truth and The American Way. you're not...

STOP BRIBING CONGRESS AND LAWMAKERS

Last time I checked, that WAS The American Way...

Re:Robin Hood

[alexhohio]

Tell me if I am wrong- But didn't the RIAA get convicted of price fixing on CDs, and instead of all of us getting a dollar or two back for each CD we had purchased (yes I know the logistics would be nearly impossible), didn't the RIAA for the settlement give free CDs to libraries and schools, I remember reading that the CDs the RIAA gave the libraries and schools were all the junk that they couldn't get rid of. For example, an urban library recieveing 50 copies of the Wayne's World II soundtrack... And these are the people who want to define theft? Sort of like the people who donate 100 cans of beans that have been expired for a decade, to the food shelter, and then act like they are heroes...

Re: Robin Hood

[Dashing Leech]

"Of course then you have the issue of how to deal with morally objectionable material. I for one wouldn't care to allow porn to be paid for like that."

It already is, essentially. Although hard-core porn cable/satellite channels are paid for directly, other channels show porn (usually softer, but not always) that are paid for though advertising revenues and/or general cable fees. Personally, I don't find porn objectionable. I do, however, find fear-mongering crap like Fox News and other similar "news" shows objectionable. If I had to pick things I'd rather not be paying for it's something like that.

However, ultimately for the general solution to work we all have to partially pay for some things we object to. That's the way society works in general. Everyone needs to contribute, but you don't get to pick and chose what your contribution pays for except in the aggregated sense.

Re:Robin Hood

[mpe]

Ah, but it's not stealing, is it. The thief has still got all the music, even after you've taken it.

Theft is a concept which has been around for a long time. The concept of copyright and hence copyright infringement has only existed for a few hundred years.

This is the first time in history that we've ever had any valuable goods that could be duplicated for free like this.

"Content" is not a good. Whilst it was tightly bound to a media the kluge of "intellectual property" made some sense.

Re:Robin Hood

[mpe]

The ability to measure potential is a difficult, even if 1% of the people who download a song or movie would have purchased it, it is still a large amount of money lost.

Only if you ignore the catagory of people who purchase the CD/DVD (as well as going to see the movie/watch the TV/etc) because they were able to download something they found they liked.

Re: Robin Hood

[CastrTroy]

This is exactly my way of thinking. Its amazing that CDs cost so much. CDs should cost about as much as CDRs. Only add on a little bit more to give money to the band and producers. All the other costs can be assumed to be pretty much equal. Even charging $5 per CD for the band and producers means that the CD should cost about $6. If CDs were this cheap, I'd buy 3 a week. But I can't even stand to buy 1 a month, when they insist on charging me $20 for 10 songs totalling 35 minutes.

Re: Robin Hood

[3terrabyte]

The traditional cost of media is largely distribution costs (if you believe the RIAA).

Wrong. The RIAA does not say most of their cost comes from distribution. Their cost comes from "investing" in all their artists, of which only 1 in 10 are profitable.

However, don't mistake my personaly beliefs as theirs.

Re:Robin Hood

[alexhohio]

In the letter he says that the students illegally downloaded files- What are the odds of one of the students accused haiving no illegally downloaded files, and then sueing for slander or libel. You can't just call someone a criminal without a trial... Wouldn't that be great, someone sueing the RIAA Pres, and winning.... I am getting the warm and fuzzies just thinking about it...

Re:Robin Hood

[3terrabyte]

Dear sir, I feel for you.

My main beef with 'legal' online music is lack of content. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how many mp3's my friend has, and he'd chuck them in an instant if **ALL** of their discography was avaiable at all times. Even for a cost.

I'm talking cross-tagged genres, biographies, pictures, member lineups, similar-to links, redone-by, etc.

And the funny thing is, these records companies are the ones WITH this information.

Even iTunes has only recently broken 1 million songs to choose from. That's terrible!

Re:Robin Hood

[CastrTroy]

SHHHH... don't tell them about usenet/irc. I don't think they've figured that one out yet. Seriously. All you ever hear is about how bad Kazaa, Bittorrent and the others are. Nobody ever mentions IRC and UseNet. Even though all the real geeks know it's the best place to get MP3s.

Re:Robin Hood

[gpinzone]

You can call it a fallacy, and from a legal pov you are right,

Actually, there is a rule of law called the clean hands doctrine...

Re: Robin Hood

[DeathFlame]

Except that if it was ACTUALLY theft, then it would be a criminal act, and that you could go to jail for it and such.

However it's not theft, it IS copyright infringement, and it's only a civil matter, so they can only sue you for damages.

Re: Robin Hood

[Pofy]

By your argumentation, any action that doesn't result in a sell is "stealing". Hence, if the friend borrows the CD instead, he is also stealing. If instead of just collecting dust in my home since I no longer like to listen to the CD, I sell it to the friend, he is stealing too and so on.

So you end up calling something stealing that is perfectly legal. What good does that do you? What is the point in finding a similarity that might work out in some specific case and then apply that to every single case (claiming that copyright infringement is stealing)?? It is trivial to find cases were any such argumentation for claiming copyright infringement is stealing won't work. It is trivial to find examples of actions that is stealing but not copyright infringement but also cases that is copyright infringement but not in any way stealing in any way you look at it.

Actually, the whole idea of using "loosing money" to find similarities is quite stupid since copyright infringement has nothing to do with losing money. Something is not copyright infringement because there is a loss of money or income for someone. Copyright infringement (in these cases) are about creating something new, that is creating a new physical property that happens to be identical to something else. Stealing deals with changes in possession or ownership of such physical properties.

And this is an important thing to note, the differences between ownership of a copy of a work and "ownership" of the copyright to a work. The first actually deals with physical objects, ownership and stealing works out. The copyright has very little to do with this having the copyright does not imply or relate to owning the individual copies. Thus, it is perfectly possible for a copyright holder to commit the crime of stealing a copy of his own work (for example taking a CD from a shop). THAT is stealing, completely unrelated to copyright and copyright infringement.

There are also obvious differences in the consequences between stealing a CD and copying a CD. In the case of stealing, the store (for example) is the one losing out. The copyright holder doesn't get any money in any form when you are convicted. When you copy a CD instead, the shop does not in any way lose out. Instead the copyright holder is the one that can go after you and get money for the infringement.

Anyone claiming that the two cases (stealing and copyright infringement is really the same and can be called stealing) has in my opinion simply not understood the concept of copyright and its relation to actual physical copies, at all.

>And don't confuse the issue with who the seller
>is. The current contracts for music make the
>record labels the sellers.

Not the slightest idea what you talk about. For most people, a store is the seller. The music maker would be sellers to the store.

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

A large motivating factor in the American Revolution was unjust taxes, so there is some common ground there.

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, an inappropriate analogy. People were compelled to pay taxes to England. Nobody is obligated to give the RIAA anything.

Re: Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.

How many times does it need to be said? THEY NEVER HAD THAT X DOLLARS! If they never had it, it couldn't be taken from them, therefore it is not stealing. It is preventing profit, which is very different. Protestors in front of a store can convince people to not shop there. Did they then "steal" from the store by preventing the profit?

No matter how many times you put "in fact" in front of an incorrect statement, it is still incorrect.

> It is theft, maybe not of the actual media, but of the profit the seller SHOULD have been allowed to make on the item.

No one prevented them from being allowed to make money. They did not offer it at an attractive-enough price, so the person chose not to give their money to a corrupt organization (whether they knew it was corrupt or not).

> you do not have the right to steal their money.

But they have the right to steal mine through illegally-obtained and relatively arbitrary taxes?

Fuck that. Once they start playing fair, I will start playing "fair." You can complain about it being illegal, which I will not argue, but you aren't convincing anyone with those tired, rehashed, B.S. arguments. It is IP infringement, stealing is, by definition, about actual property, it does not include infringing on a company's distribution rights to an abstract concept.

Would you argue that it would be stealing if I recorded a song that sounded almost exactly like a popular one (AKA a remake) and then gave it away, because anyone who liked my remake would have liked the original. Thus, I have deprived the original distributor of the money they could have made by people buying copies of the original. Am I a filthy thief?

Re: Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> "666" will be an issue someday

If only refusing to think was illegal...

Re:Robin Hood

[hesiod]

I'm not trying to talk down your point at all, but how much music do you need? Three Terabytes (guessing, 1mil @ 3MB ea) of music not good enough for you?

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

"The content producer can make money by selling physical media (with the content), licensing, online sales, whatever. If it's made cheaper, more media/licenses will be bought, but less profit per sale. If more expensive, more profit per sale, but smaller numbers sold. Optimum somewhere in between."

..and so can people who didn't produce the content but might have a cheaper way to produce the media..

This system of yours sounds like a way to shaft the little guy who made the content but hasn't got a million CD duplicator-tron. The big dup. factories will do really well though.

Re:Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> There is no difference

When there are excess CDs, they sit on a shelf.

When there are excess workers, PEOPLE DIE .

You know, those little things like starvation, no health coverage, not enough CDs, etc.

Re:Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> at least that what we would steal it for

Hey! You mean Physical Property Infringement, bucko!

Re:Robin Hood

[Duck of Death]

He's not saying that downloading music using I2 is OK. His point is that the original editorial was completely one-sided and that the RIAA, rather than being an innocent victim, has been and continues to be guilty of similar behaviors.

He is accusing the pot of calling the kettle black - he's not saying that the kettle's bad behavior is okay.

DD

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

> how is any system but totalitarianism a workable one, if we take the premise that the law is always right?

And now you know why "the law is always right", is the only position being taught in public schools.

/files report on citizen 762272 with the Night Watch. Better him than me.

Re: Robin Hood

[nuser]

The grand parent is using the legal definition of stealing, in the same way that piracy is a crime involving boats, that has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

Re:Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> I don't believe you can really argue that its wrong to do so.

"Belief" is all you need to look to to see why someone could think it is wrong. A good Christian (which I am not) will say "turn the other cheek" after being wronged by the RIAA. It is then "wrong" to do them wrong by stealing.

I agree with your sentiment, just pointing out that someone could argue that point.

Re:Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> It is then "wrong" to do them wrong by stealing.

Geez, I committed one of my own most hated mistakes. Replace "stealing" with "infringing on their copyright."

Re:Robin Hood

[Vraeden]

He never once says stealing is okay. He says he isn't going to do anything about it until the complaining side stops stealing first. Nothing invalid about his position. The law does not force him to do the enforcing.

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

> And then there's the issue of the Orwellian legislation they push through with the help of the government that we're supposed to be able to trust to protect us from such things, as if Homeland Security wasn't edging towards a police state already on its own.

From: [censored]
To: [censored]

"Give us the tools to exterminate those who threaten our business model, and we give you the tools to exterminate those who threaten your business model."

If it makes sense no matter who's on the "From:" or the "To:" lines of the letter, it's not parasitism, it's symbiosis.

Re:Robin Hood

[Illserve]

if you want to complain about lost profits, STOP BRIBING CONGRESS AND LAWMAKERS! there, that'll save you more money than yelling at pimple-faced teenagers

Actually bribing congressmen is cheaaaap. They're having a firesale on laws, everything must go!

Last time I read the reports of cash contributions to senators I was alarmed at how little money it took to buy yourself a DMCA. I think it's in the neighborhood of several million clams.

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

# If people want a copy, they can get a copy (and not pay, if they don't feel like it).
# The content producer can make money by selling physical media (with the content), licensing, online sales, whatever. If it's made cheaper, more media/licenses will be bought, but less profit per sale. If more expensive, more profit per sale, but smaller numbers sold. Optimum somewhere in between.

Ah, someone actually studied a little economics.

The problem is that almost any seller has to be price-competitive with the competition to make any significant amount of sales. Things like location and product quality (branding) can change that some, but you still can't charge significantly more than the next guy. What we have here is that people can buy their music, or they can get the exact same music for free. The music company (or even just the artist) has invested in the music, and has to get a return on that investment if they are going to pay to produce more music. The record company pays for artists, producers, recording studios, media, mastering. Music can be made cheaper, but not in remotely the same volume, and often at lower quality. The file-sharer invested at most $20 for the CD, so he doesn't have to charge at all, but he is still able to offer the exact same product, because someone else paid for it.

There are a lot of comparisons to buggy-whips going around here, saying that they shouldn't use legislation to support an obsolete business model. This is a straw-man, because they aren't forcing people to pay them (that would be the Dutch mp3 tax law thing), they are simply trying to keep people from taking their product without paying for it. They have the right to offer their product on their terms. You can take them or leave them. People still want buggy-whips, they just aren't willing to pay for them anymore, and taking without paying is colloquially referred to as theft. You cannot take their product and offer it on different terms, that's just as bad as using GPL code in Windows.

If their business model is a failure, then let it fail. If CD sales plummet and Internet SALES skyrocket, then the RIAA will notice. If bands that sell tracks online for a small fee are successful, people will figure it out eventually. The problem is that this will never be allowed to happen, because far too many people feel entitled to free music. What kind of idiot would pay $.50 for something that they can get for free? It's not stealing, and it's not even wrong, right? You can't compare someone offering music online and someone who doesn't, because both their music is available online whether they want it there or not.

The point about DRM is good. It just adds costs that aren't strictly necessary. It's the same as door locks and car alarms. The problem is that the record companies are scared. They want to offer online content. They want to do exactly what you want them to do (at a slightly higher price). But if they do, they fully expect to see copies of everything they are selling being given away for free at a much higher volume than the sales (and I can't blame them.) How can they compete when the competition is their own product for free? They try to put DRM on things so that they can offer online music, but the people who want online music laugh and strip the DRM off in record times. The recording industry then pulls back again, and everyone loses once again.

Basically, both sides of this debate are wrong. They both paint the opposite side as pure evil, and refuse to see (or admit) their own serious moral issues. I say we stage a giant deathmatch to get rid of the whole lot of them.

Re:Robin Hood

[stlhawkeye]

Is he saying stealing from thieves (or unethical businesses) is not so bad?

Robin Hood stole from the government, not from thieves.

....

Er... nevermind!

Re: Robin Hood

[NixLuver]

Good point, and you're right - subtle distinction, but important; The companies that the RIAA represent are 'talent' companies; the distribution companies are differently represented. I meant that, according to the RIAA, the bottom line cost of a CD in the store is largely packaging and distribution, not that the costs of the companies represented by the RIAA are largely distribution.

By 'investing' in the artists, they mean "marketing".

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

He's saying that the RIAA doens't pass a "clean hands" standard.

clean hands doctrine: A rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim.

Re: Robin Hood

[jotok]

And "stealing" only applies to physical items, not when dealing with all-digital content. Use "copyright infringment", "illegal copying" or "unauthorized distribution" instead. You don't 'own' an image, you may own some rights to decide who is allowed to copy that image, and under what conditions. These rights may vary from country to country, and aren't absolute either (see: fair use).

You are correct insofar as this is an issue of violating an access control. However, theft is not about the taking, but about the having: if I sneak into a competitor's research labs and photocopy the plans to the new product they are going to bring out, then even though they still have them, I have still stolen something. Before, I didn't have it, and then I did.

The defense should not be centered around trying to make pirating music legal. It is clearly theft. However, you can make a case that the current model of the music industry is unjust to the artists, that their model of controlling access to their product (relying on licensing, physical media, etc.) is antiquated, and so forth. This does not make pirating music "right," but pirating does provide a good if it forces the industry to wake up and start innovating, I think. Making money off the music itself is like making money off of advertising, and not the product you're selling.

Likewise, that the RIAA and MPAA are profiteering gluttons who exploit artists does not make stealing from them somehow right. Nor do their gestapo tactics or intense lobbying justify stealing from them. In the end, they legally own the rights to control access to the music, and people are violating that.

If you want to make a case that the RIAA/MPAA having that control is unjust, fine. But at the same time, I wonder how many people using that argument have done anything towards increasing the rights of the artists (educating themselves, signing petitions, etc.), or if all they see is "Wow, free music!" ...Probably pretty few, and in that sense, their motivations are the same as the RIAA/MPAA. Hard to want to take a side when everyone's being a bastard, what?

Re: Robin Hood

[drsquare]

The current music industry is a buggywhip plant asking the federal courts to pass laws making it illegal for Ford to sell Mustangs without buggywhips.

No, more like the 'buggywhip' plant clamping down on people infringing their copyrights.

Re:Robin Hood

[Kehvarl]

3 terabytes of music isn't enough if the 3 pieces I want aren't included in it.
Which is not to say that if I wanted music and went to find it, those pieces wouldn't be there, but as long as there is even one missing song then there's not enough there for everyone.

Re:Robin Hood

[stlhawkeye]

two things: moral high ground (riaa/mpaa are good guys; your college students are being bad, please stop them) and also the fact that colleged (and the legal system) should NOT be used to help protect one business' outdated sales model.

Just because they are a bunch of stubborn idiots doesn't mean that their request is unreasonable. If students were using the university's photocopier to reproduce entire text books (let's pretend the use of the copier is provided free of charge by the school) and were buying one book for a class and making copies of it and handing them out, I'd expect the publisher to be furious, to demand that the University put a stop to it and enact better controls over use of their equipment/services.

That's not unreasonable. The RIAA is still a bunch of bullying idiots, and they're still never going to solve the piracy problem, it's too late, they missed the bus, and they're going to have to eventually rethink their business model.

Still, the material is theirs, they do hold an exclusive right to redistribute and reproduce the content, and the students who violate this right are breaking the law using university resources. I don't think they're asking for anything unreasonable. I'm more concerned that legitimate file sharing would be trodden upon in an attempt to comply with whatever demands the RIAA is making.

Re:Robin Hood

[Wallahalla]

One of my favorite quotes in the world comes to mind every time I hear things like this:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country
the notion that because a man or a 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 public interest.

This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor 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, for their private benefit.

Robert Heinlein
"Life-Line"

-Wallahalla-

Re:Robin Hood

[poot_rootbeer]

It costs about $2 and under to print a single CD with artwork.
Why then don't CD's cost $4?

A sheaf of architectural plans to build a house from costs a few dozen dollars to print. Why then do houses cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to design and build?

The media for music distribution is cheap, and in the case of MP3 sharing almost too cheap to meter. But the cost of content development and production is still substantial. That cost, too, is falling as prosumer grade audio systems get cheaper and better continuously, but because the time and effort of humans who work to make music is a relatively fixed cost, the production expense will never go away.

Why don't CD's cost closer to $10 than $20? Well, the middlemen have to pay for their coke habits and legal crusades against college kids somehow...

Re: Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me put it this way: your opinion is not illegal, but it is wrong. Hope this helps you understand the distinction; neither is generally a subset of the other.

Please go and read philosophy (ethics) 101 for basics on why this is so. One reason is that while law is (or should be) same for everyone (objective), ethics are personal (subjective), and by definition different people have different ideas of what is wrong. Laws generally try to both approximate consensus ethics, AND add some practical limitations that are required or beneficial for well-functioning of society.

In addition to illegal not always being wrong, there are obviously cases where illegal is right. Basic examples can be built easily: if you have a lethally sick child, and pharmacy has medication but you have no money to buy it, some might think it may only be ok to steal the medicine, but possibly even your duty; even though it would still be illegal. Others have pointed out cases like slavery etc.; it's trivially easy to point cases where illegality is at odds with wrongness.

Re:Robin Hood

[hedge_death_shootout]

A thief has no right to complain if someone steals from him.

Well, in fact he does.
He also has the right to remain silent, a phonecall, an 'attorney' or whatever non-hollywood equivalent applies, etc.

Re:Robin Hood

[AussieVamp2]

Yep (currently looking at LP stack of boxes) and walls full of books All digital be nice though on moving days! Even more interestingly on that point, how long will the digital stuff keep for? Although vinyl problematic if you can't get record players any more when your last one finally fails. Have some 20-30 year old LPs and tapes that work fine, will the CDs and DVDs at that age?

Re:Robin Hood

[StormKrow]

How so?

Last I checked, stealing was illegal. They achieved the possessions in question thru illicit means, so if someone steals something when it wasn't theirs in the first place, I don't see how he has a right to complain.

Poetic justice as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Robin Hood

[AussieVamp2]

as in this sense of 'illegal'? Fred could not buy product to save the life of his father because it was illegal.

Re:Robin Hood

[hackstraw]

I would just like to remind people that this is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, not THEFT.

Big difference.

Prisoner 1: What are you in for?

Prisoner 2: I'm innocent and waiting for my appeal, but they put me in here for copyright infringement.

Prisoner 1: What the fuck is "copyright infringement"?

Prisoner 2: Its distributing copies of copyrighted material to people.

Prisoner 1: Oh. (starts moving carefully away from Prisoner 2) I'm innocent too, but they thought I was guilty of theft. (runs from Prisoner 2)

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

Again and again, we are getting it wrong. Just because someone is an unethical slimeball doesn't mean it's right to do something illegal in turn.

Sure. CD prices haven't gone down since. . .uh. .since. . well since they came on the market. Mebbe slighty less. A newly released album is around what? $15.00-20.00 USD? But that doesn't justify going home, ripping the tracks on it and then releasing it on eDonkey, bittorret, etc. or just grabbing stuff that's commercially released or even pre commercial release. The real solution is there, but we as a community are so chicken shit and into self gratification that we can't accept it. Don't like the price. Don't buy it.

Also download free music and support indie or local bands if you like it.

When record companies notice that sales are in the crapper, or people only buy things when the prices are docked they will get the message. But try telling that to the average 12 yr old girl with disposable cash that she shouldn't buy Brittany's latest album.
Although I think about that statement and say, "hell I can't even tell myself to not buy something sometimes." Which is why I did start using iTunes for legit purchases. Hopefully, I'm supporting something towards a different model.

All in all, let's not kid ourselves. Anyone who rips or downloads commercially copyrighted stuff [THAT THEY DIDN'T PURCHASE] is doing something illegal. And all those in the legal profession and the IANALs out there try to prove me wrong through the actual copyright and fair use laws on the books.

Also, don't give any of the crap about how "Oh, well I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so I guess it's okay." Don't kid yourself. If everyone thinks that then everyone starts the free download train. It might has well have been only one CD sale for infinite copies. I'm not crying for the artists who have made it big and are bitching about downloads while they screw three ho's on a pile of money. There is a great deal of cost behind the scenes for people with real jobs. Although, I'll admit they might take a hit before the record industry business model changes.

The moral rendered for this diatribe:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

(yes, yes, but three lefts do.)

Re: Robin Hood

[kurzweilfreak]

(All IMHO of course...)

When your competition is the black market, I would imagine the laws of supply and demand are a little unfairly skewed. I don't consider it fair to have to compete with a "business" that is inherently illegal. I guess it depends on your view of the RIAA.

I wish people would stop looking at it as buying "the CD" and realize they are paying the content. "Is this content worth something to me?" If no, don't buy it (or download it). The way I see it, if you download it, you have shown that it is worth something to you. The argument "I wouldn't have downloaded it anyway if I had to pay for it" just doesn't hold any water in my opinion. If it's worth something to you, pay for it.

Music and/or movies are not need-to-have products. They can charge whatever they want for them. Supply and demand WILL kick in: charge too much, many people won't buy them, they don't have to. Markets don't depend on rules of supply and demand; they are regulated by them naturally. I don't think you quite understand how supply and demand really works. There will be a demand for a certain unit number of a product at a given price. Usually, the scale is inversely proportional: the lower the price, the higher the demand, and vice versa. Companies use this to figure out what is the optimal price to maximize profit. It just isn't fair that the RIAA is forced to compete against illegal competition.

Re:Robin Hood

[Wybaar]

What are the odds of that student having, or being able to obtain, several million dollars to prevent the RIAA/MPAA's lawyers from stalling the case (a la SCO v IBM) through various and sundry legal techniques until the student's bank account was empty?

It would be great if it were to happen, but without major funding, or a lawyer willing to take the case on pro bono or for a percentage of the settlement, the 900-pound gorilla could simply wait and win.

Re:Robin Hood

[prof.morbius]

Last time I read the reports of cash contributions to senators I was alarmed at how little money it took to buy yourself a DMCA. I think it's in the neighborhood of several million clams.

Err, OK, but what was the price of clams that day? Hell of a clambake, anyway.

Re: Robin Hood

[d34thm0nk3y]

Kind of like saying right = left because they are both directions.

Yes, they are both illegal but the law itself refers to them with different names because they are different things.

Re:Robin Hood

[kizzbizz]

Same in the USA. It's called the 85th percentile (Meaning that people will drive at whatever speed they feel is acceptable, and Speed Limits should be set at what 85% of the population deems acceptable). A majority of accidents occur because someone is driving 30MPH in a 30MPH zone where 85%+ of the drivers take it at 45-50. Happens all the time.

If the Govt. had our true intentions at heart, they'd set the speed limit at the 85th percentile. But isntead, they prefer the tens of millions in fines they get each year for rediculious speed traps. Plus, the insurance companies are more than willing to "donate" 4000$ laser radar systems because in many states 1 speeding ticket can be cause enough to raise rates.

Re: Robin Hood

[krbvroc1]

The difference here is that the abolishionist and Rosa Parks were willing to suffer the consequences of their civil disorder / law breaking. I don't hear many of the folks who think they have a $DIETY given right to freely distribute copyrighted works willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

Re: Robin Hood

[3terrabyte]

I looked for the link, but I can't find it. The reason I replied to your first comment was the just today, I read an article about an RIAA rep replying to questions/accusations about the cost of CD's being so high. He replied with the usual propaganda about how inflation today makes CD's actually at an all time low, investment in 90% of failed artists, etc. He actually took a stance based on cheap CD costs, cheap distribution (online too) etc.

They're talking out both sides of their mouths, depending on the situation.

Personally, I figured most of their costs go into marketing. They already own the producing side, they partially own most distribution channels, CD packaging, materials, etc. All they're doing is paying themselves money in each area.

And even the marketing side they're greasing. I'm sure MTV is owned by one of them. Radios shows are all ClearChannel, and we've read about Payola. Tickemaster is corrupt, so I can only imagine they're in bed. And even the retail stores are getting rear ended. Special prices IF they put up certain banners and signs and promos? Anyway...

Re:Robin Hood

[3terrabyte]

No, no, no! I have 3TB of porn.

Re:Robin Hood

[3terrabyte]

"But the cost of content development and production is still substantial"

The artists are already being billed for that part... So where is all the money going?
Oh wait, I see your last paragraph there...

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Also known as the ad hominem "tu quoque" fallacy.

Re: Robin Hood

[doombob]

Man I don't know who you're doing your hosting through, but after some rough math, I figured that I could sell a 5MB song over 200,000 times for about one hundredth of a cent per month.

Re:Robin Hood

[BCW2]

"but you really can't compare the current situation to home taping."

Yes you can, because they were whinning about people taping off of radio, instead of buying albums. They never considered the quality difference.

We just had a set of $350 Logitech speakers here(white box store) we played an mp3 song and then the same one from a store bought CD, you could hear the difference, so the same quality issue still exists. The only other time I could tell the difference was at a friends house on his Bose 901's, with a MacIntosh tube amp pushing the sound..

Re: Robin Hood

[Deanasc]

Wasted away again in Daquritaville. A Captain Bartman Original. Because Jimmy Buffet uncooly charges people for the rights to his songs.

Re: Robin Hood

[NixLuver]

Interesting! Thanks for the heads up, I'll go look. I've always heard them harping on the 'high cost of CD distribution'; perhaps it was last year's propaganda...

Re: Robin Hood

[Shihar]

Supply vs demand is kind of moot because the supply is nearly endless one someone has put in the initial cost to make the product (music). Any idiot given an MP3 file and distribute it at almost no cost to everyone else in the world. The result is that the point on the curve you are looking at is supply and infinity... which is always roughly zero. If people are acting in their own self interest and altruism isn't a factor, people simply won't pay for such content at all because the supply is so high.

What IP laws do is fix a supply. They give a monopoly on a certain product such that the supply can be limited. If only one company can produce and sell the music, then they can limit the supply and control the price. They can always keep it so that there is just enough supply such that everyone gets what they want, but they keep from flooding the market so that sellers don't drop their prices. Take out IP laws and suddenly the supply jumps to infinity and price drops to nothing.

Now, as to the American economy and traditional American capitalist ideals, IP laws have always been a problem. On one hand Americans want lassie-faire capitalism, on the other hand there is the inherent problem that pure hands off capitalism has a very hard time dealing with things with infinite supply. You could certainly get rid of IP laws, but the consequence to purely IP industries would be devastating. Hollywood and the RIAA would cease to function. Until some new model was found to make money off those IP products, the only things you would see coming out of America would be things created for altruistic purposes.

That in it of itself might not be horrible when you are talking music and movies, but the problem becomes much more sever when you are talking about things like technology development. Pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and pretty much all advanced technologies thrive in IP protected markets. IP protection ensures that if pour a few million into coming up with an idea, someone can't copy your data and bring it to market without having to pay for the R&D costs.

The IP system in the US, Europe, Japan, and pretty much every place in the world that does or does not have IP protection is fucked up. The real problem is that mustering both a plan to fix it, the political will to do it, and minimizing disruptions to the economy is pretty much damn near impossible. I see the good and bad of IP laws, but I couldn't even begin to argue a solution. Personally, I think that technology will make the question moot long before we solve it through legislation.

Re: Robin Hood

[Hurricane78]

Correct. And to extend this:

Laws generally make no sense, because:
- Good guys don't do illegitime stuff because they know what's right.
- Bad guys don't care for any laws or the legitimity of what the-re doing.

There's only one rule: If 2 indiviuals/groups have a different meaning of what's right and what's wrong, they can argue (with the rules of strict logic and w/o paradigs) or they have to leave each other alone.

Or does anyone have a better idea?

And SFMBE, but I9T (sorry for my bad english / i would be happy if you would learn my language too ;)

Re: Robin Hood

[Travelsonic]

The defense should not be centered around trying to make pirating music legal. It is clearly theft.

Then why not sue for/prosecute under theft laws then?

Re: Robin Hood

[Travelsonic]

> you do not have the right to steal their money.

Explain to me again how it is possible to take something away from somebody, when they didn't even have that something to begin with? Simple, you can't, it goes back to a certain entitlement mindset that tricks the mind into thinking that they are somehow entitled to everything just because they made something to earn dough. The laws and economics don't allow it to be so simple.

Re:Robin Hood

[bechthros]

"You mean Physical Property Infringement, bucko!"

When the original item, physical in this case, is gone and the owner is deprived of its posession, that is theft.

When the original is exactly where it was and an inexact, highly filtered and compressed copy is created remotely, that might be copyright infringement. Then again, it might not.

What you hyper-moralistic buffoons never remember is that Congress passed a law which specifically authorized people who buy media to make imperfect copies of it and distribute them to their friends. It was called the "mixtape law". Where do you think all those mp3's floating around the P2P universe came from? They were ripped from CD's that were bought at stores. In other words, somebody who bought the media made imperfect copies of it and distributed them to their friends.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

- Thomas Jefferson

Why, you don't hate America, do you?

Re:Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> What you hyper-moralistic buffoons never remember

At this point, I feel the need to point out that saying "Physical Property Infringement" was a joke pointing out that IP Infr. is not theft. :)

I'm a pirate, arrrr.

Re: Robin Hood

[antispam_ben]

People still want buggy-whips [commercial music], they just aren't willing to pay for them anymore [copying and distributing commercial music as mp3's without paying royalties is now MUCH cheaper, faster and easier than buying CD's].

The strong-arm tactics of the RIAA don't justify the stealing of commercial music. If you don't like what the RIAA is doing, don't listen to the music controlled by them. Go to the local bar, and if you like the band's music, buy their locally-produced independent CD. At least you'll know most of the money actually goes to the band.

Re:Robin Hood

[plague3106]

Which is why I perfer logic to some brain dead ideas pushed by the richest organization in the world. Worst of all, what they preach many times doesn't even match whats in the book that supposedly governs them!

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

63% of all rebuttals are made up on the spot. 52% of all people know that.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

thats 73% nonsense and you 67% know that !

Re:Bah

[F13]

Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. Fourfty percent of all people know that.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

57% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Bah

[sharpestmarble]

I read a study that said it was 86%!

Full text of rebuttal....

[gardyloo]

"I'm rubber, you're glue."

Re:Full text of rebuttal....

[th1ckasabr1ck]

It's actually more like: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Re:Full text of rebuttal....

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm rubber, you're glue."

And for those of us who never heard that phrase...
I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

Thank you Google!

Re:Full text of rebuttal....

[ramblin billy]

In this case it's more

I know you are - and so am I.

billy - wanta bet whether the prof wants to get paid if he hits it big?

Re:Full text of rebuttal....

[nimid]

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

YAIA

[pdbogen]

(Yet Another Internet Argument)
While I am quite pleased to see authority figures (even if they are just university professors) standing up to the RIAA, I must admit that Prof. Dannenberg actually did rather little to counter Sherman's arguments; while his points are good and valid, they do, unfortunately, follow one of the cardinal rules of internet arguing: Never argue the opponents points, only point out his weaknesses.

Re:YAIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Hitler.

Re:YAIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood that rule - pointing out weaknesses gets YOU no points, it might remove his, but you won't win unless you can actually out-argue one of his points rather than just discrediting them

Re:YAIA

[ergo98]

I've never understood that rule - pointing out weaknesses gets YOU no points, it might remove his, but you won't win unless you can actually out-argue one of his points rather than just discrediting them

On the topic of discrediting, I think we should remember that Anonymous Cowards have been, historically, the perpetrators of countless GNAA recruitment campaigns, goatse stealth links, and ad hominem attacks. Anonymous Cowards have posted misogynist and anti-semitic attacks of horrifying proportions, and as a general rule are unsavoury characters.

So clearly your point has no foundation.

Re:YAIA

[j-turkey]

Shut up, Hitler.

Not flamebait. It's a play on Godwin's Law and Internet argument "rules". I thought it was pretty good.

Re:YAIA

[jevvim]

I must admit that Prof. Dannenberg actually did rather little to counter Sherman's arguments

I think the Prof. did a good job here, primarily in showing that there's a historical record of established companies either (a) using their technology to control who gets published, or (b) using their position in an attempt to prevent other companies from competing with them.

Internet2 is all about research - should that research be restricted because an organization known for strong-arm tactics is attempting to strong-arm the research institutions? What about all those independent acts out there who can't get their creative works published, and who want to use P2P to build the fan base that could get them a record deal? What about alternatively-licensed content that needs to be effectively distributed? Should we listen to an organization that has historically shown itself as an impediment to new technology?

I think the Professor did a fine job in discrediting the article's author. But, alas, it's in today's paper, which is read less (ok... of which fewer copies are sold) than the Sunday edition, where the article was published. Think the RIAA cares about the letter?

Re:YAIA

[Aaron England]

Never argue the opponents points, only point out his weaknesses.

You mean, kind of like what you just did with Prof. Dannenberg's argument?

Re:YAIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know this professor's position on having old tests, homework and papers from his class distributed? If he's not behind that then he can go fuck a cuisinart for all I care about his opinion.

Re:YAIA

[teksno]

typically in the american court room all you need to do is discredit the the plantiffs point, thus they have no real argument.....and you are safe under the cloud of reasonable doubt. but that might be a bit harder in this case....

Re:YAIA

[n6kuy]

I say it *is* flamebait.
Intentional invocation of Godwin's Law is poor form.

Re:YAIA

[pete_townshend]

I've never understood that rule - pointing out weaknesses gets YOU no points, it might remove his, but you won't win unless you can actually out-argue one of his points rather than just discrediting them

Exhibit #1 - The Democratic Party

Re:YAIA

[Trepalium]

Exhibit #2 - Any political party you don't personally agree with

Re:YAIA

[guitaristx]

I don't understand how the parent can belive that Prof. Dannenberg's attacks against the RIAA's behavior over the past century is irrelevant - I find it to be the most relevant. This argument isn't a logical argument, it's a political argument, where emotion and sentimentality have a large part to play.

He points out that the RIAA's moral high-ground position is invalid - the RIAA is a leading cause of impoverished musicians. It is inane to expect him to put forth more effort to "protect the musicians' rights" than the RIAA is willing to do themselves. Prof. Dannenberg has little to gain or lose by assisting the RIAA, yet the RIAA itself has everything at stake. This is senseless - how can the RIAA expect the general public to pity the musician and pay the RIAA, when the RIAA has shown time and time again how much they don't care about the musicians?

The RIAA's behavior certainly seems to be more like a protection racket than an organization to provide services to recording artists.

Lacking Content

[Mathonwy]

I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anyone, but I wish this letter had had more meat in it. In particular, the final point ("I know people who haven't gotten their checks from you guys, so nyah") is a pretty weak...

The first part is ok, I just wish there were more of it. It's not like the recording industry's history doesn't have enough hypocricy to fill several articles. That would have made a better impression. "Extending musical copyrights for centuries is absurd, and clearly just a money grab" is a much better argument (imho) than "You steal from us, so it's ok if we steal back".

Re:Lacking Content

[Dun Malg]

I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anyone, but I wish this letter had had more meat in it. ...The first part is ok, I just wish there were more of it. It's not like the recording industry's history doesn't have enough hypocricy to fill several articles.

You have unrealistic expectations from that type of forum. The problem is, he wasn't writing an article, it was a letter to the editor. Letters that are article length either don't get published or get edited down to two or three short paragraphs. He did the best one could expect within those limitations.

Re:Lacking Content

[ramblin billy]

Yah, I hadn't considered that until you pointed it out. He's pissed because his friends didn't get paid so it's OK for everyone to avoid paying...

So, explain it to me...how do his friends get paid again?

I know he's saying why pay if the money doesn't get where it's supposed to go - but all his friends sure seem to want the money. And come on now, 41 users and 144,000 files - that's file ripping of biblical proportions (sorry)! It's awfully hard to justify that much 'sharing'. Having 1000 songs on your hard drive that you've never heard doesn't do anyone any good. That's not sharing - that's hoarding.

billy - who doesn't like mp3s anyway

Re:Lacking Content

[MacDork]

I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anyone, but I wish this letter had had more meat in it.

For some reason, I agree and the phrase 'sleeps with the fishes' keeps popping into my head... ;-)

Re:Lacking Content

[renehollan]

The problem is, he wasn't writing an article, it was a letter to the editor.

Indeed.

I used to write many letters to the editor of the Financial Post (a right-wing national financial paper in Canada - I usually argued the libertarian position). I had a good record of getting them published.

Once I got a call from their letters to the editor deportment, saying, basically, "We like your letter. But, it's too long. Can you shorten it? In the next 5 minutes?"

I responded, "Just use the first and last paragraph. It'll stand on those". Silence for a few seconds, then, "Geez, thanks! That works!!" and "clik" as the line went dead.

The point is I wrote my letter to be edited. Most papers reserve that right, to edit for brevity, typos, and grammer. The desk editor was doing me a curtesy by asking, though the cut he was wanting to make was significant (about 70% of the content, most of which was backing my opening assertion).

So, yeah, letters to the editor are often statements of opinion, with little to back them up. The ones that have their substance back up often do get published in favour of those that don't, even though the supporting arguments are omitted in the final version. That this one had several of those arguments published says something of the importance the editor(s) gave it.

Re:Lacking Content

[AussieVamp2]

1000 songs is not a lot though? 100 albums at 10 songs an album?

Re:Lacking Content

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, I hadn't considered that until you pointed it out. He's pissed because his friends didn't get paid so it's OK for everyone to avoid paying...

He is not saying two wrongs make a right. He is saying clean up your own house first.

Re:Lacking Content

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I listen to you? You are no different then the RIAA. You have a hidden agenda in your words you are just as greedy as the RIAA. So rot in hell.

Robin Hood-Rebound.

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, he's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

People who live in rubber houses shouldn't either.

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[Grakun]

"No, he's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

People who live in rubber houses shouldn't either.

Why not? It's non-destructive, and they may even learn something. (ex. flying rock == pain)

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[Anonymous Coward]

And people who life in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones**.

** Conditional on the thrones being heavy, and stored on the second floor of the house

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[tomhudson]

And people who life in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones**.

** Conditional on the thrones being heavy, and stored on the second floor of the house

... ah, someone who read Isaac Asimov's Joke Book, I see. Carp-to-carp walleting, The Caesar Corn Exchange motto - "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears", the McBeth Drycleaning Co - "Out, out damn spot!", and The Dagger Tail-light Co - "Is that a dagger I see before me".

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[roman_mir]

"Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears" - I remember this line from Alfred Bester's Tiger Tiger

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[stor]

Maybe I'm missing the joke...

It was originally stated by Marc Anthony. With a name that includes "Roman" I'd expect you to know that ;)

Cheers
Stor

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[roman_mir]

Yeah, I know that ;) but the only thing that the phrase triggers in my mind right away is that book (Tiger Tiger.)

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[chthon]

The thing that triggers me here is a scene from Spitting Image, where a Leonard Nimoy/Spock puppet stands behind Marc Antony, and when he utters the phrase, he touches Spock's ears. Then Spock applies the Vulcan death grip to Marc Antony.

It had something to do with Leonard Nimoy wanting to act in Shakespeare plays.

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[thezapper77]

But if someone in a rubber house wants to throw stones, i think they deserve what's coming to them...

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[Angostura]

I seem to recall it was a running gag with Nimoy continuously getting the lines wrong in Shakespeare set-ups:

"To be, or not to be, that ... is illogical captain... D'oh".

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[radiophonic]

Oh, now you tell me.

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[Zeinfeld]

"No, he's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." People who live in rubber houses shouldn't either.

If you think about it there is no risk whatsoever in throwing stones at glass houses if you live in a rubber house.

There is however a serious downside to throwing stones at a rubber house someone else is living in.

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[shreevatsa]

"Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears"
The only thing that springs to my mind is Mike Tyson.

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[Anonymous Coward]

People in glass houses shouldn't get stoned.

Re:It's pluckin time.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's intended as a limit of vengence, not a minimum. As a limit, it avoids escalation of violation; as a minimum, it leads to civil unrest.

Wow!

[ta bu shi da yu]

Mr. Sherman, you say that stealing "is not OK," and yet I have musician friends who cannot get RIAA members to pay them the royalties they are due. While you are asking universities to address your problems, please don't forget that you too can be a "powerful leader in curbing theft of copyright materials on campus." If you'll stop your members from stealing from my friends, and then study some history, maybe I can help you.

I'd love to find out who RIAA members are stealing from. That would really stop them from spouting off that the RIAA "protects" artists by allowing them to make a living!

Re:Wow!

[Travelsonic]

I'd love to find out who RIAA members are stealing from. That would really stop them from spouting off that the RIAA "protects" artists by allowing them to make a living!

Simple, the RIAA aquires the artist copyrights over the work through a contract that might not always make perfect sense, then they make claims that the lawsuits are all done for the artists, but recieve minimal return from this (I read that ALL the money goes back to the RIAA's legal fund). That, and the fact that artists generally see about a dollar or less from a CD, the rest goes to the store, and much more so to the RIAA companies.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there was this:
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/06/1211233.shtm l

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

here you go:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the information on the link you posted and I don't know where the guy studied law, but a letter of intent does constitute a legal binding document. Simply aggreeing to discuss terms and potentially sign with a company does not mean you are forever indebted to them until they release you. It means just that, lets see what you have, if I don't like it I'll go elsewhere. A legal binding contract needs 5 things: offer (from label to record their music), intent (by both parties to try to reach an agreement), consideration (some reason for both parties to sign the contract (worthwhile reasons); technically signing a contract to record music for free can be thrown out), acceptance (both parties must agree to the terms of the contract) and finally legal ability (are the parties legally entitled to enter a contract and is it for a legal matter). Failure to meet all of these makes the contract null and void, so just saying we want to discuss signing a contract does not bind the artist to the label or whatever so they string them along for years without being able to sign with another company.
Heck even signing a contract saying we work for you and having the company unable to provide an actual suitable working contract can be thrown out because there was no consideration for hte artist.

Lacking Content-A Shill Response.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anyone, but I wish this letter had had more meat in it. In particular, the final point ("I know people who haven't gotten their checks from you guys, so nyah") is a pretty weak..."

If it's good enough to use on Slashdot? Then it's good enough for him to use.

This is quite an amusing ironical double-standard

[danalien]

...hearing 'Big thieves' (RIAA's members, the 'music maffia' - 'we' all know how the operate...) cry over (from their POV) a bunch of smaller-thevies 'stealing' from them....

*HMpf*

danalien - former filesharer, stopped 'stealing' garbage ...

Teaching their students bad values

[kfg]

I'm curious, is the RIAA aware that the universities are engaged in adult education?

KFG

News?

[Dynedain]

Wow, a 10 sentence letter to the editor...thats breaking news and a clear-cut victory for the anti-**AA crowd.

Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[MacDork]

I got my brain on hype.
Tonight'll be your night.
I got this long-assed knife,
and your neck looks just right.
My adrenaline's pumpin'.
I got my stereo bumpin'.
I'm 'bout to kill me somethin'
A pig stopped me for nuthin'!


Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(f**k her)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.

Yeah, it's those damned colleges that are corrupting the moral values of America's youth while the RIAA stands for all that is just and good.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, but Cop Killer addressed a real problem that is ongoing today. At least Ice-T never killed anybody for being the wrong color. Racist police brutality has kept up with the Cincinatti police, the Diallo shooting, and several other incidents.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[theonetruekeebler]

Body Count was a damned interesting project---Ice-T reclaiming hard rock as a black musical form. "KKK Bitch" is as badassed as it gets, BTW---or it was, until the track "Cop Killer" came up.

Frankly I'm more than a little disappointed by the decision to pull Body Count then re-release it without that one song. Chickenshit, really---shows the industry for what whores they are. So much for standing up for their artists.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Lester_Wallace]

The best part about this Cop Killer thing by Ice-T is that Ice-T plays a cop on some TV show. Last week I was flipping channels and saw that his character got shot in the chest. I couldn't help but start rappin' some cop killa...

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reclaim" hard rock as a black musical form? There's no question the road back from hard rock passes through the blues, but to claim there was anything black about the bands who laid the foundations - Sabbath, Cooper, etc. - is one hell of a stretch.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

Gangstas (that is how they spell it, right?) talking about how they want to commit violent crime, sell/abuse drugs, cause destruction and heartache in the world...

You want to defend crap like that?

This isn't a song about racist police brutality - it is a song about criminals who want to murder the very people who protect the innocent.

Excuse me if I never want to meet you or people who see things in the way you do.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[AoT]

I forgot about that shit. I am going to go down load it now.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Law & Order

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[zbuffered]

When you get it, put it on usenet. I don't use P2P anymore.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

To be precise, Law and Order: SVU. Remember there are four different Law and Order series now.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[hesiod]

> it is a song about criminals who want to murder the very people who protect the innocent.

HAHAHAA!! GOOD ONE! Police protecting the innocent, that's funny!

Look, of course they are criminals wanting to murder cops. And yes, they are using racism as their standard mostly-bullshit excuse, but let's not pretend that they (we) don't have a real reason to hate the police.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware they pulled "Cop Killer"; that sucks, it's a great song. My brother had the album confiscated by my mother twice when he was younger.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

> Look, of course they are criminals wanting to murder cops. And yes, they are using racism as their standard mostly-bullshit excuse, but let's not pretend that they (we) don't have a real reason to hate the police.

(Another AC jumping in.)

Yes, most black guys in South Central are thugs for whom I have no sympathy when the LAPD blows 'em away. And most LAPD cops aren't much different. So yes, "Cop Killer" was about an otherwise-innocent black guy going postal on cops in an attempt to return the favor.

And yes, as much as I hate the gangstas, a few of us kicked back in the common room with a case of beer, flipped on the tube, turned down the TV volume, and flipped on the stereo for music to accompany the bloodshed during the LA riots (while listening for real-world sirens as smaller bits of our own city went up in flames).

Mind you, we were rooting for the white guys. (As a white guy myself, and at a college full of white guys and Asians, we knew we were dead meat if they'd decided to destroy anything other than their own neighborhoods :)

But that didn't stop us frop putting "Cop Killer" and the instrumental track "Body Count's In The House" (same album, the track consists of little more than samples of helicopters, sirens, explosions and gunfire) on repeat.

The irony wasn't lost on us. What the hell - if it really had been the start of Civil War II, we'd have needed to be drunk and nihilistic, if for no other reason than to apologize to the idiot nazi punk who would finally have been right about something :)

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[AussieVamp2]

yes, was just mentioning that to the spousal unit the other day excellent album though!

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[mink]

Before that he was in the main series of the show as I remember a pimp/small time dealer who gets his head smashed in with a bowling ball at a diner.

Re:What's next... assassians?

[TheGavster]

What does the administration have to do with murder investigation? I'm pretty sure that the local jurisdiction will be more than happy to investigate the wrongful death of an upstanding member of the community. While it is an interesting question as to the lengths the cartel is willing to go, the unecessary authority bashing weakens your point. A better jab would be 'and the RIAA even has the money to make the case disappear'.

Robin M. Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

"Absolutely. The internet "sharing" of anything that can be "shared" means nobody with anything digital is going to be able to derive any money from it. This is the target that many claim is where they want things to go."

Didn't RMS teach us that sharing's good?

I agree with the professor

[Bananatree3]

It makes sense, at least to me, that the RIAA's all-stakes vendetta against file sharers is taking things too far. While I do think that artists should have the ability to make a living off of their music, it does not at all justify the sheer amount of all out attack that the RIAA has been taking agaisnt File-sharers.

The RIAA's tactis have not done nearly as much I think to stop illegal file-sharing as LEGAL music downloads like Apple's iTunes and others have been doing. The scare tactics employeed by the RIAA only scares off some of the less-diehard file swappers, and does not deter the majority of the sharers out there. While it may seem like the number of file sharers has decreased, the majority of those that have stopped have probably moved to legal forms of getting music downloads. If the RIAA, instead of spending millions on lawyers fees to sue, spend that money on promoting legal music downloading, I have a feeling the impact would be greater

Re:I agree with the professor

[Darthmalt]

If they saved all the money they're spending on going after file swappers and instead lowered cd prices I guaruntee you would see an increase in buying cds

Re:I agree with the professor

[Soko]

I've always believed that the RIAA is more interested in control than sales.

The Internet is a distribution channel that they will never (hopefully) fully control. If they can't control their means of distribution, they can't provide stable financial data - which tends to conflict with what share holders want in a company.

Internet distribution can make the RIAA totally irrelevant. With the right hardware and new applications, almost anyone can make, record and distribute quality music. The RIAA is fighting for it's very existance, IMHO.

Soko

Re:I agree with the professor

[Omnieiunium]

I agree!

CDs are so damn expensive it's pathetic. Just for a simple 20-track CD cost me about $22 CDN. I mean seriously, this is just a guess, it takes maybe a few million at most to produce an album? (Anyone who records CDs can correct me). A CD costs a good $30ish for 100. Why should we pay so much for an album. I mean if we here that they sell a couple million, they have now made back their money and a profit. I think this is a good thing buisness-wise, but you would still make a profit, and probably get more people to buy CDs, if you just lowered the damn price!

-semi-rant off-
I rarely buy music, but when I do, it sure is a hell of a lot of money.

Re:I agree with the professor

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is a distribution channel that they will never (hopefully) fully control. If they can't control their means of distribution, they can't provide stable financial data - which tends to conflict with what share holders want in a company.

Don't you really mean they can't cook the books
as effectively?
After all, next time they claim artist x has had
little or no sales, an iTunes or somebody says,
"hey, we sold thousands of his records", why,
the recording company execs might actually have to
pay out some of that cash, instead of spending
it on luxury villas in various tax-havens.

Re:I agree with the professor

[stealth.c]

Precisely.

The Internet makes them irrelevant. If the RIAA ceased to exist tomorrow, the knobs that run the radio stations, VH1, etc. would be confused for about a week, then realize the replacement already exists.

More people need to realize this. Maybe somehow, someone like Napster, Apple or Microsoft can get the typical mainstream distribution channels (radio, TV) to not think of the RIAA labels as their sole source. When that happens, well, we can watch what a free market will do. The thing the RIAA labels offer to budding artists is andvertisement and connections. If web-based distribution companies find a way to offer this too, in essence becoming labels themselves, then the RIAA is sunk.

Re:I agree with the professor

[hesiod]

> almost anyone can make, record and distribute quality music

A slight correction. They can make music with high quality sound. High quality music requires talent that most people do not have, or choose not to learn.

Not impressed.

[MetalliQaZ]

While I'm sure that the points he raises are valid, overall I'd say that was a really weak letter, and not something that deserves front page on Slashdot. Who are these "friends" exactly? How about some more modern examples of RIAA bullsh*t? The examples he gives are so far in the past that they are hardly relevent now. He needs a more developed argument and much more supporting evidence.

-d

Re:Not impressed.

[silentbozo]

My question is, is the letter printed the original letter in its entirety, or has it been edited for length?

Re:Not impressed.

[drew]

as someone pointed out earlier, this is a letter to the editor regarding another article they printed, not a full article. letters to the editor have to be short and sweet, or they don't get published.

whether that makes the article slashdot worthy i suppose is up to the reader, but out of about 10 stories on the front page right now, this is one of two that i bothered to read, so at least some people thought it worthwhile.

Re:Not impressed.

[poot_rootbeer]

The examples he gives are so far in the past that they are hardly relevent now.

They're only irrelevant if the RIAA has substantially changed their practices since. Do you think they have?

They still charge artists a whopping big percentage for media breakage in transit, even though 99% of media shipped in the last 15 years has been CDs, not delicate vinyl platters...

Re:Not impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the RIAA excludes a lot of negros.

Valid points

[Anonymous Coward]

His points are totally valid. In the past it has been a case of the RIAA missing the boat and then swimming to catch up to it. The only way that would be possible is if the boat were stopped. The point is that I don't see much difference between the past and what is happening now. They totally missed the boat on this avenue of music distribution and are trying to stop it, pressumably to tap into it themselves. File sharing is never going to stop. And digital music is stored as files (duh, but as to draw a logic conclusion) therefore, digital music sharing is never going to stop.

One big problem though:
The Internet is a massive source of information and so any manuvers they try to do are instantly brought to light as the shady, propaganistic FUD that it is. Before they had the ability to hide in paper work. Now they don't. So they react with a stronger message.

Re:It's pluckin time.

[Anonymous Coward]

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -Gandhi

Teaching their students naughty values

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm curious, is the RIAA aware that the universities are engaged in adult education?"

They teach porn?

Re:Teaching their students naughty values

[kfg]

No, they teach "art." It just happens, purely coincidentally, to involve a lot of tits and stuff.

KFG

Re:Teaching their students naughty values

[NanoGator]

"They teach porn?"

Ever taken a figure drawing course?

Re:Teaching their students naughty values

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not porn it's called Sexuality in Film

Sexual Personae: Representations of Female Sexuality in Film and Video (3914) Michelle Handelman and M.M. Serra; Mondays 6:00-9:30.
This course examines the cultural construction of female sexuality by comparing and contrasting works created within the sex industry, promoted by mass media, and produced by women artists using sexually explicit material. We will develop a discourse on gender politics by examining the culturally constructed relationship of male/female desire; the female perspective of sexual arousal; the commodification of sexuality and the queer reconstruction of sexual identity. Works to be screened range from classic pornography, Behind the Green Door and Deep Throat, to exploitation films by Doris Wishman and Russ Meyer, to experimental works by Barbara Rubin, Barbara Hammer, and Annie Sprinkle and a wide range of contemporary, cutting-edge films. Readings will include classic literature such as Story of the Eye, contemporary theories by Robert Stoller, Linda Williams, Pat Califia, and Judith Butler, and legal documents on censorship, such as the Meese Commission Report.

Re:Teaching their students naughty values

[Anonymous Coward]

I will now!

Hang on

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, by the same token you could claim that not clamping innocent people in irons is just inviting them to commit a crime. Even if the letter isn't the greatest comeback ever it's still a step in the right direction, namely stopping such idiots from coughing up this tripe quite so readily.

hmmm, some new slashcode:

[Anonymous Coward]

if ( $submission{id} % 50 == 0 ) {
#&spell_check( \%submission );
&post_to_main_page( \%submission );
}

Unreadable

[alan_dershowitz]

Did anyone else find this rebuttal just rambling and boring? He didn't do a lot of rebutting, just yammering all over the map about things only tangentially related to the topic.

Re:Unreadable

[Anonymous Coward]

Example?

Re:Unreadable

[alan_dershowitz]

Service quality in Wal-Mart and other retailers. What? Internet 2? Not making a clear connection here.

Re:Unreadable

[krem81]

I bet he has a low Slashdot user ID, though.

Re:Unreadable

[FriedTurkey]

Did anyone else find this rebuttal just rambling and boring? He didn't do a lot of rebutting, just yammering all over the map about things only tangentially related to the topic.

Hello...he is a college professor. Did you go to college? College professors never actually say anything useful.

I am not reading the rebuttal. I just picked up a syllabus and I will show up for the exams.

Re:Unreadable

[michaelhood]

Hello...he is a college professor. Did you go to college? College professors never actually say anything useful.

I choose not to argue that..
But then, why is it exactly you've chosen to attend a college where you realize you will gain nothing from your professor's teaching? Aren't you just supporting a system that (per your opinion) allows you to pay a lot of money to hear professors to say nothing useful?

Re:Unreadable

[aziraphale]

Actually, I believe it's paying a lot of money to acquire a piece of paper that tells other people that you've listened to professors saying nothing useful...

There's a subtle but important difference.

Re:Unreadable

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot. On.

Uphill Battle

[DumbSwede]

Here is my take on why the MPAA and RIAA will fail in trying to realize all of their draconian measures. We are headed into a sea of entertainment choices, and while the MPAA and the RIAA would like to make sailing these seas a cash cow with DMCA, it seems unlikely that will succeed. The RIAA is screaming about shrinking revenues and blames piracy. Piracy is a partial answer to why RIAA revenues are not increasing at projected rates. Actually shrinking (yet) is debatable depending on whose numbers you use. But here is a better list of reasons the RIAA is no longer getting what it thinks are its just dues:

1. People have been use to getting free music for decades -- ever since the birth of radio.
2. People used to feel the money paid on records was mostly in the physical process of making records and distributing them, but now they see with 10 cent CDROMS and 1/10 of a cent per Meg of disk space that playback mediums are now virtually free.
3. A lot of people feel recorded music is all advertising. Why would you listen to an artist if you hadn't already heard the artist and why would you pay for something you've already heard?
4. In the past people bought records they heard on the radio only because they didn't have a convenient way to record just the songs they wanted and to index, label, store, and retrieve them.
5. In the past people didn't feel like chumps for plunking down $10 for and album and $15 for a CD, because there weren't millions of others are getting this stuff for free. Let me make the point clearer - even if the RIAA scares someone into not downloading music from the net, the willingness to pay full price will also be diminished because the tantalizing free stuff lies just a wire away.
6. Some portion of the potential audience feels that musicians are over compensated, immoral, prima donnas that can't actually perform outside a recording studio without 100 retakes and then special post processing to improve their marginally capable voices.
7. Some people prefer live music and think money paid for a live show is the only real compensation music artists should expect.
8. Music artists and the RIAA are seen as hypocrites hawking anti-establishment messages and then looking for special rights, powers, and protection from the establishment to maintain their empire.
9. Ever since the death of the 45-rpm single, people have felt coerced into buying all of the songs on a CD or album when all they wanted was a song or two.
10. When people buy something they like to feel they actually own it and can do what ever they want with it. You can buy or subscribe to music singles again these days, but not without some flavor of DMCA. Some more draconian than others.

So ironically it is not that some huge percentage of the population is listening to bootleg music, though they probably would if the RIAA weren't fighting this loosing rear guard action, but that the cheapness of distributing music has been uncovered and become known because bootleggers exist. That Genie is not going back in the bottle -- maybe they should change their business models instead.

Re:Uphill Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the perhaps the reason that the RIAA's figures are not what is expected because the quality of "artist" it's members are pushing...

Re:Uphill Battle

[largenumber]

11. In a digital medium, music is just one big number, extremely easy to reproduce, exactly as it is, because it is a number. Before digital mediums this was not possible.

12. You cannot own a fact, not in the intellectual property sense or the physical sense of the word. You cannot own a number because it is a fact.

The intellectual property proponents are in what I like to call a fortified losing position. At one point they had a business model that was based on distribution and storage and now that model no longer works because distribution and storage have become far too easy and cheap. The whole IP discussion is ancillary to their current and future financial crisis. If they don't change their business model or manage to invade every aspect of your personal life in the name of IP (which has less to do with IP and more to do with monitoring and controlling you in ways most find offensive at best), then they will not maintain their entertainment cartel.

Re:Uphill Battle

[wozster]

and... there are so many new entertainment mediums these days due to the internet and/or computers

and... their behavior will create more public scrutiny

and... "most" old-school media is now cheaper due to the price comparison ("window-shopping") that the internet provides

and.. people ("Joe and Jane sixpack") are going to get extremely pissed if you take away their fair use (first sale doctrine) rights

and.. I'm sure you can think of more.

I personally encourage the RIAA to keep the strategy that they're using because it will act as a catalyst.

Re:Uphill Battle

[hankaholic]

A few additions:

11) Some might refuse to buy what, according to original copyright terms, should be in the public domain at present anyways.

12) Some might feel that the industry's track record with regards to fairly compensating artists is far from spotless. It's hard to listen to the same industry which will gladly take away the creator's ownership of their works or sell off rights to the highest bidder accuse the public of denying artists fair compensation.

Meta-comment: Slashdot's lack of support for "<ol start=11>" is irritating.

Re:Uphill Battle

[ramblin billy]

Which came first ripping cds and illegally distributing their content or DCMA? Your arguments boil down to "people don't want to pay". Your points about varied content and lower prices mean nothing when no one pays. Do you think all the p2p people are ripping off the people who DID pay the artists for their work by buying the cds? Damn straight they are.

billy - sick of the self serving BS and rationalization and holier then thou and...

Re:Uphill Battle

[angle_slam]

Why would you listen to an artist if you hadn't already heard the artist

I've heard this argument many times here and I am completely surprised. I would guess that over 75% of my music collection (and it's a pretty large collection) consists of music I never heard before buying the album. Not just albums I never heard from artists I'm familiar with, but albums from artists I had never heard before. That's what music was always about to me. Get recommendations of music from people with similar tastes. Then buy it. Sometimes, you're pleasantly surprised. Other times, it's a dud. That's the breaks. Even in the Napster era, I would more often just buy a CD instead of downloading a track (the unreliability of ID3 tags has a lot to do with that, though).

(I stopped listening to the radio over 10 years ago, so that isn't a help).

In the past people didn't feel like chumps for plunking down $10 for and album and $15 for a CD, because there weren't millions of others are getting this stuff for free.

"Everybody else is doing it" is an adolesent excuse.

Re:Uphill Battle

[wozster]

Oh, you're right Billy, keep it up, it's working well for you.

Re:Uphill Battle

[prurientknave]

holy fuckballs! that's a great way to share music =) Hey! this new album is between 10^23 and 10^24 exactly half way.

*slaps himself for not thinking of this earlier*

Re:Uphill Battle

[largenumber]

That's funny ;o} You mention the word work and how artists are somehow ripped off by the p2p crowd because they aren't getting paid for their work.

Its funny because work can be classified into two broad categories: enabling services and production services.

Enabling services are those that once you've performed them don't need to be done again and possibly allow other services (enabling or production) to be performed.

Think of the work involved in calculating the gravitational constant. Once its performed it doesn't need to be done again, but it allows for other services. In fact, there are so many I won't bother to list them here.

Then we have production services. These are the kind of services that must be done over and over.

For example the fabrication of a cpu is a production service (just the actual fabrication, the design of the cpu only needs to be done once allowing for the production of many cpus).

When you talk about the recording of an artist's works you are refering to an enabling service. Once an artist is recorded it doesn't need to be done again. On the other hand, when you talk about a live performance by an artist you are refering to a production service. It is a service that must be done again and again.

So when you talk about the p2p community ripping off the people who did pay for CD's you're simply confused. It is the recording & distributing industry that is ripping off the people who paid for CD's AND the artists. They over charge for the price of recording and distributing the music while skimping on paying the artists for the performance they have done.

People pay for services performed. In the case of an enabling service, there is a certain limit to the number of times it can be performed for compensation, which in the case of an artist's recording is very low. In the case of a production service, the limit on the times it can be done for compensation is typically pretty high.

An artist should take this to heart. Unless you can demand a very high price for performing your enabling service you may be better off doing a production service.

Re:Uphill Battle

[largenumber]

You may be interested in the distributed large number database. Which as far as I can tell hasn't been implemented, but looks like fun.

Re:Uphill Battle

[ramblin billy]

And which people who download the music are responsible for "the very low" number of times the artist SHOULD be paid. If you listen to my work you must find it has some value. EACH person who listens is finding value - not persons 1 through 100 of 25,000. Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct - why should the first 100 pay the whole tab when if all 25,000 chipped in they would all pay less? And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free? If we don't let you, you're ripping it off. Your arguments are predicated on your definitions of 'value' and 'work'. I don't agree with either. I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself. Once again your arguments boil down to "I don't want to pay". Good on ya! Don't pay - steal it - just don't try to justify the theft with BS.

billy - don't get me started

Re:Uphill Battle

[largenumber]

>>And which people who download the music are responsible for "the very low" number of times the artist SHOULD be paid.

Actually, the physical nature of music recordings themselves are what make the recording of music an enabling service. Your argument holds about as much water as a tub that blames gravity for the water leaking out of the holes in itself.

>>Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct

Second, its low to attack me personally by saying that I have a low valuation of an artist's work and its also low to blame me for a business model that logically doesn't work. You'll have a hard time convincing people that my argument is BS if you rely on these kinds of attacks.

>>EACH person who listens is finding value - not persons 1 through 100 of 25,000. Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct - why should the first 100 pay the whole tab when if all 25,000 chipped in they would all pay less? And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free?

Third, people pay for services. You buy shoes because they enable you to perform the service of protecting your feet. You don't pay the person who made your shoes everytime you use them. You pay them once for the service of making them.

>>Your arguments are predicated on your definitions of 'value' and 'work'. I don't agree with either. I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself.

Fourth, my arguments are based on premises of work and value. So are yours. I, on the other hand, have tried to make them clear. If your going to disagree with my premises its at least civil to mention why and to give some of your own. "I don't agree with either." is an empty callous statement.

>>And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free? If we don't let you, you're ripping it off.
>>I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself.

Fifth, economics clearly says that both the supplier and buyer set the value of a service (Supply and Demand). You may firmly reject that all you want.

>>Good on ya! Don't pay - steal it - just don't try to justify the theft with BS.

Sixth, stealing a fact is simply not possible. A digital recording of music is a big, long integer. An integer is a fact. 2 is a fact. 3 is a fact. You can no more steal the first 10,000 digits of pi than you can steal the color blue.

>>Once again your arguments boil down to "I don't want to pay".

Finally, my argument clearly, and repeatedly, has been that people pay for services and is why the recording and distributing industry is failing. Not "I don't want to pay".

You obviously don't like the fact that you aren't getting compensated enough for performing in a recording studio. I suggest you don't perform in a recording studio unless you feel you are getting compensated enough for that. It is tragically ironic that you would be so angry about the amount of compensation you receive from that and your belief that you should be the sole person that sets the price on it.

A business model that you might try is to setup a website and paypal account where people who hear you perform (or hear poor quality recordings from public performances) and want a high quality version released can donate money to have it done. When you feel enough has been donated (probably best to tell them in advance how much that will be), then you go to the studio and get recorded.

PS Tell Billy that I believe he started himself.

Re:Uphill Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong wrong wrong.

1. people haven't ALWAYS been able to get one-to-one, on demand copies, which anyone with intelligence will see is a MUCH different scenario. unlike cassette recorders and radio, mp3s have marginal generational loss and you don't have to wait for some disc jockey to decide to play it. an mp3 acts much (for most people) the same as a master copy.

2. with economies of scale almost any medium can get super cheap after awhile. you don't have reputable figures for the manufacture of the LP and cassette in their market prime and neither do i.

3. from that wonderful point of view, EVERYTHING is an advertisement. that's like saying why would you buy a sandwich you'd never tasted before and if you've already had one why would you get another one? How about because you want it on-demand?

4. again, on-demand. music is alot like software in the effort and method that it takes to create. if you want to use my software whenever you want to, you have to pay me a licsense fee, even the radio station that plays a song pays the artist a fee.

5. i'm sorry if paying artists for their work makes you fee like a chump. you should talk to somebody about that. no matter how much anti ??AA rhetoric you've read on the internet it doesn't change the fact that you've probably NEVER read the contract of a major label artist that you've downloaded. simply put you've no idea how much money is going to the artist or to the label, only what the anti-RIAA has fed you, and what did you expect them to say, anyway?. it's usually much more for the artist than you'd think.

6. well, because of gates, ballmer and jobs, some people would say that software engineers are over-compensated, insular, arrogant, immoral, prima-donnas (NEITHER stereotype is TRUE, btw) does that give someone the right to pirate software? no, it doesn't. i'd also wager that you know exactly ZERO profession musicans.

7. i wish they cared about live performances in the states as much as they do in europe (hell, they don't even listen to the band here in the U.S) but they don't. you still can't make up your own rules, however.

9. well, we got itunes, among MANY other things. sure, it's not perfect, but name a business model that gives you everything you want whenever you want it? there aren't many.

Here's your final answer, 98% people download music because then they don't have to pay for it. None of them have ever known or cared about a social cause to do enough about it and won't start now. Again, it's free music, simple as that, everything else is just rationalization.

Re:Uphill Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Third, people pay for services. You buy shoes because they enable you to perform the service of protecting your feet. You don't pay the person who made your shoes everytime you use them. You pay them once for the service of making them.

absolutley correct, and you pay the record label and the band once for the service of making the cd. you don't have to pay capitol records every time you cue up "i want to hold your hand."

Sixth, stealing a fact is simply not possible. A digital recording of music is a big, long integer. An integer is a fact. 2 is a fact. 3 is a fact. You can no more steal the first 10,000 digits of pi than you can steal the color blue.

from that point of view the Mona Lisa can also be broken down to a mere number, from the composition of the chemicals in the paint, to its size and position in our reality. does this mean i can go to the lourve and help myself to it? not coincidentally the money in your wallet is ALSO a number, from the amount in it to the acidity of the paper...

EVERYTHING's a number, einstein. the digital copy is simply the number that my computer can understand. it's amazing what you can convince yourself of....

A business model that you might try is to setup a website and paypal account where people who hear you perform (or hear poor quality recordings from public performances) and want a high quality version released can donate money to have it done. When you feel enough has been donated (probably best to tell them in advance how much that will be), then you go to the studio and get recorded.

um, no. listen, people want what they want NOW, without waiting and certainly without openining their wallets. hence, the popularity of p2p.

Re:Uphill Battle

[ramblin billy]

Did it occur to you that none of your responses had anything to do with what I said? Did it occur to you that most of the things you said don't make any sense?

"Third, people pay for services. You buy shoes because they enable you to perform the service of protecting your feet."

Yeh, does that mean a rutabaga is a service that keeps me from dying and smelling up the neighborhood?

I just can't take it anymo....oh I get it - you're a troll - you really had me going. I'm embarrassed to admit I honestly thought there was someone that clueless. You got me good. You're totally wrong about the musician part though. I do know a few in Nashville, but they all get paid pretty good. I've always found it ironic that none of them really likes country music.

billy - is your ps some sort of /. troll thingie ?

Re:Uphill Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh! The classic "you must be a troll" troll! Well done!

Is repeating your username and adding a tagline some sort of trollie thing?

Re:Uphill Battle

[unitron]

"from that point of view the Mona Lisa can also be broken down to a mere number, from the composition of the chemicals in the paint, to its size and position in our reality. does this mean i can go to the lourve and help myself to it?"

No, but feel free to use that number to construct an exact duplicate using your own canvas, paints, and brushes. Notice when you are done that the number is still intact and can be used again by someone else to make their own exact copy. Meanwhile the original painting is still right there on the wall of The Louvre.

Re:Uphill Battle

[Anonymous Custard]

6. Some portion of the potential audience feels that musicians are over compensated, immoral, prima donnas that can't actually perform outside a recording studio without 100 retakes and then special post processing to improve their marginally capable voices.

Don't confuse "recording artists" with real musicians.

But you're right; too many recording artists are about looks and image rather than music and poetry.

Re:What's next... assassians?

[courseB]

assassians.... probably soon.

this will become more common in time as the corporations get bigger... its like shadowrun but they would rarely be used because marketing can create armies to do their biding.

i2p will make this all moot

[gremlins]

Just wait till everyone is using i2p. Then the RIAA can't really do anything about it.

On that note I agree with the assertion this letter raises that the RIAA and similar groups are only intrested in the law when it suits them. When it doesn't they either disregard it or spend tons of money to buy our congressmen so they can have it changed.

Re:i2p will make this all moot

[Motherfucking Shit]

Just wait till everyone is using i2p. Then the RIAA can't really do anything about it.

Sure they can. They own the lawmakers, remember? When everyone is using I2P, use of I2P in the US will be made unlawful. Then they won't even have to prove you were transferring a specific file, just that you were speaking a certain protocol.

Re:i2p will make this all moot

[gremlins]

Then they will make a polymorphic protocol that makes it hard to track. Some one will figure something out and we will all be talking about that crazy law that didn't work.

How about saying copyrights are crap!

[argoff]

Trying to treat things that can be coppied freely like property that can't is simply bullshit morality, and I think by now everybody knows it, but too many people are scared to just plain say it. Maybe they don't want to hurt peoples feelings, maybe they just don't want the social stigma of the brow beaters saying "you hate artists", maybe they're just holding out hope for a "compromise" so everybody can just get along, I don't know?

Re:How about saying copyrights are crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is a social contract. You should be familiar with those, because they're what keeps society working.

Copyright extends onto those that create intellectual property various protections in return for creating things of value to society. Things for which the act of creating is special, whereas the act of reproduction is trivial.

They exist so that people that create art do not have to acquire compensation for their work before the work is distributed. Art becomes a pay-as-you-go endeavor like buying a toothbrush or sitting down at a restaurant and ordering a meal.

As a nice side-effect they permit people whose art is especially appreciate to receive compensation in proportion with the demand society has for it (how popular it is), which if anything merely serves to entice people to create works of art.

It's an agreement between creators and consumers. It's not "bullshit morality." The problem is that it's become easier for pricks like you to simply ignore the contract. As a side-effect, you just feel like you're entitled to violate it and seeing it as an anachronism, you somehow justify your actions.

You douches know that you can't change the laws. It's not because evil corporations fuck the consumer and buy all of the politicians, it's because doing so would inconvenience everyone as the entire art industry shifted to a pre-pay model, and it's easier for you to just download shit off of the Internet while other people continue paying for art, than it is to fuck yourself in the ass. Some enlightened moral high horse you sit upon, you ow-so-brave Internet warriors. Some of you tools even think you're the moral equivalent of abolitionists.

It's truly amazing just how delusional people on Slashdot can be.

Re:How about saying copyrights are crap!

[hesiod]

My implicit "social contract" is with the government, who is abusing that contract. I never signed, agreed to, or was informed of a contract that allows the RIAA to dictate law.

Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can call it a fallacy, and from a legal pov you are right, but I think the vast majority would consider it a lesser crime than stealing from a non-thief."

It however makes for an excellent slippery slope.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Well, considering that the US allows the legal murdering of murderers (a.k.a capital punishment), one has to ask how much more slippery the slope can get...

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for everyone when I say:

wtfpwnd.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

No.
You're not.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[xtracto]

That only can show you how screwed is the US legal system... And how is it being manipulated by the large corporations.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[TheoMurpse]

To be fair, that requires a concrete definition of murder (which is different from killing). Does it entail accidental killings? What about purposeful killings in self-defense?

I believe a strong definition of "murder" is an intentional, premeditated killing with malice. Thus, capital punishment is killing, not murder.

But that's just one opinion from a guy who is pissed that criminals receive better treatment in the US from the government than orphans do.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[penix1]

"I believe a strong definition of "murder" is an intentional, premeditated killing with malice. Thus, capital punishment is killing, not murder."

Well that's some twisted logic but I'll work within your framework...

Is capital punsihment intentional? Given that prosecutors must seek the death penalty specifically, that would be a yes...

Is it premeditated? Given that the US has considered many forms of putting people to death and have decided to rest on lethal injection (for the most part) and it is planned from the start to happen at a set time on a set date with a set group of witnesses the answer is yes...

Is it done with malice? It has been described as, "The ulitmate punishment" by Supreme Court justices. Being a punishment it definately is done with malice.

And your point above holds that it is murder! Just because it is state sanctioned murder doesn't make it any less a murder.

B.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[TheoMurpse]

Being a punishment it definately is done with malice.

Are you seriously trying to say that punishment is imbued with malicious intent? Are all parents malicious then when they ground their children?

How would you define murder? My definition was created in such a way that people who kill in self -defense and by accident are not murderers.

Intentional is a given requirement for murder. Do you argue against that? Malice is required for it to be murder. Are you going to argue against that? Premeditation is an iffy requirement, I'll give you that.

What part of my definition do you disagree with? Even if I simplify the definition to "intentional killing with malicious intent", you still must make a case that punishment is imbued with malice in order to definitively claim that capital punishment is murder.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[penix1]

"Are you seriously trying to say that punishment is imbued with malicious intent?"

From Wikipedia...

"Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party only gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party."

When you legally put people to death it is for the express purpose of achieving retribution for a past act. In the form of retribution it is with malice.

"Are all parents malicious then when they ground their children?"

If it is done with the idea of retribution then yes.

"What part of my definition do you disagree with? Even if I simplify the definition to "intentional killing with malicious intent", you still must make a case that punishment is imbued with malice in order to definitively claim that capital punishment is murder."

You were the one that set the framework here I didn't. I am of the opinion that capital punishment is wrong mainly because of the hypocritical statement it sends..."It is wrong for you to kill someone but it is ok for US to do it!" There are only 2 reasons to "punish" people. First, to teach them not to do it again. Since you are talking about the death penalty it follows to show you are not trying to teach that offender any lesson. Second, to exact retribution in an attempt to show others the "consequences". In the case of capital punishment, this is exactly what you are doing. Hence it is done with malice.

B.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most legal systems allow stealing from thieves (aka fines), or kidnapping kidnappers (aka prison) so I fail to see why you simply want to make this a capital punishment arguements.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[QuantumPion]

Ah, I see where you are confused. You have no concept of morality, thus you think the crime of murdering an innocent person and the punishment of putting to death the murderer are morally the same.

We in (most parts) of America value life so much that the price for taking a life is your own life. By making the punishment for capital murder death, we are affirming the value of life. If the punishment for murder was only 5 years in jail, what would that say about the value of the life that person took?

The death penalty is not an act of revenge or retribution with malice. It is the price you pay for the act that you commited.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

retribution:

Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

or put another way the price you pay. God, learn what words mean before you spout such stupidity.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Pentagram]

But that's just one opinion from a guy who is pissed that criminals receive better treatment in the US from the government than orphans do.

I don't know what the US government treatment is for orphans (though I'd imagine it's not that great considering its other social policies) but I doubt they get intentionally killed.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Kehvarl]

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but when a google define: only turns up wiki's definition once, and a dictionary.com search finds a slightly different definition, I hesistate to use wikipedia's instead.

Dictionary.com defines Malice as:
2 Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

A google define: finds similar definitions, such as:
he intentional doing of a wrongful act, without just cause or excuse, with an intent to inflict an injury, or under such circumstances that the law will imply an evil intent.

and:
Unjustified, inexcusable intent to commit a wrongful, legally evil act.

The primary difference between these definitions and the one from Wikipedia is the use of the terms "unjustified", "inexcuseable", and "without just cause".

Another problem with the wikipedia definition of malice is the part about implied malice. Using that definition of implied malice it becomes legally impossible to NOT have malicious intent if your actions illegally cause the death of someone.

In the course of your argument, you proceed from the wikipedia definition of malice to a statement that killing people in retribution is inherently malicious. However, this conclusion seems unsuported by the wikipedia definition or any of the other definitions. In addition, since capital punishment is not an unlawful act, it doesn't actually fall under the implied malice definition, and can't fall under the express malice definition you provided either.

So, I must conclude that my rambling nonsense does nothing but ask you to be more logically consistant when discrediting capital punishment. thanks.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Saltine]

Quoth the parent:

There are only 2 reasons to "punish" people. First, to teach them not to do it again. ... Second, to exact retribution in an attempt to show others the "consequences".

I can think of various reasons why people might want a penal system:

1) To rehabilitate transgressors and therefore curb recidivism ("teach bad guys not to be bad guys"). As you mentioned, capital punishment fails does not fall into this category.

2) To inflict punishment on transgressors in accordance with a system of morality ("bad guys deserve bad things") Again, as you mentioned, capital punishment definitely -does- fall into this category.

3) To deter would-be transgressors ("keep the good guys good") You lumped this into your second reason, but it is separate. Capital punishment, at least to some extent, falls into this category.

4) To improve civil safety by quarantining or eliminating transgressors ("keep the bad guys away from the good guys") You didn't mention this one... and capital punishment definitely accomplishes this objective, albeit not delicately.

--

It is possible to view the death penality as a deterrent and as a civil safety measure, and not as an act of retribution... although there are certainly other forms of punishment which accomplish those objectives as well, without all the killing. And since there are other things you might want out of a good penal system (fairness, temperance, adaptation to new information, etc.) the death penalty is probably only really attractive to those who value morality-based retribution over everything else.

Logorrheically,
Saltine

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[misterpies]

The meaning of "malice" in the definition of murder is not a dictionary definition, it's a legal one. If you want to know what it means, you need to look at case law and statute.

So what is murder? Well the classic (17th century English) definition is: "when a person unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum naturum under the queen's peace, with malice aforethought"

"reasonable creature in rerum naturum" basically is longspeak for human.

the "queen's peace" bit means that it's not murder for a soldier to kill an enemy during wartime.

"malice" in this sense means nothing more than intention to kill. Legally speaking, executing a person is most definitely killing with malice.

The thing which lets executioners get away with "murder" is the first part - to be murder the killing must be unlawful. Which legal execution, by definition, is not. It's also lawful to kill in self defence, which is why that's not murder.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[misterpies]

As I explained in another post, when the law says "malice" it means "intention", not ill-will. That's why it's still murder to kill your bedridden, cancer-ridden, paralysed mother who is begging for someone to end her unbearable life.

What makes capital punishment not murder from a legal standpoint is not the absence of malice, but the fact that it is defined as lawful. If an executioner killed a condemned prisoner other than in accordance with the law - e.g. hanged when the law required legal injection - then that would be murder.

Never make the mistake of confusing the law with morality.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Kehvarl]

the dictionary.com definition I posted specifically stated "Law" as in, "in terms of the law this means..." I'm fairly certain that the legal definition isn't just intent to kill, but the intent to unlawfully kill. and an executioner is not unlawfully killing anyone.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

And we in enlightened parts of America value life even stronger, such that taking any life is simply not done, and if it is, the person responsible is locked down permanently.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well, considering that the US allows the legal murdering of murderers (a.k.a capital punishment)

Murder is the "unlawful killing of of another human being". Given that the word "unlawful" is in that definition, and the government makes the laws, any killing done within the scope of those laws (self-defense, capital punishment, abortion) is, by definition not murder.

Note that abortion is not murder because it is legal (and therefore, by definition, not murder). It may also be not murder because a fetus is "not a human being". But our personal beliefs as to the humanity (or lack of same) of a fetus is irrelevant to the legality of abortion, hence abortion is not murder....

Clean hands...

[SubDude]

It is a principle of law that a plaintiff (RIAA/MPAA) should have clean hands when prosecuting file sharers.

The RIAA has a long and sordid history of stealing IP monetary rewards from the artists that write and perform the music.

It is sad nobody can afford to take the RIAA and their crooked members to task.

Dude

Re:sick of the RIAA stories

[em0te]

Oh, thats right I forgot that digital music has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with anything software. But, to point out the obvious. The Internet is a community. Slashdot is a sub-community. We talk in a community forum to address concerns about said community. And we share the concerns. Create an account and set your prefs to see stuff about hardware and software things, then you can remain ignorant the rest of your life. (whoops, oh well I already typed it)

USENET

[HD Webdev]

I still don't know why people like P2P applications so much. They are begging to get busted due to them waving a 'looky here at my copyrighted files' flag publicly.

USENET is still superior: Anonymous uploading of files can be done. Downloads are usually extremely fast & won't be noticed by the RIAA or whoever else is interested. And, reviews ("virus!", "bad sample rate", "wrong file", "goatse.cx warning", etc..) of uploaded files are there to be looked at before choosing to download them.

P2P, bah. There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.

Re:USENET

[garcia]

P2P, bah. There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.

25 million reasons why... Comcast HSD subscribers. Also millions more: People who don't want to deal w/USEnet (I'm one of them).

I have never had a positive experience getting anything from USEnet other than alt.sex.stories and from what limited reading I did of it in the past month it sucks worse than ever.

USEnet for files is awful even with programs to do it for you. P2P is fast, getting faster, and has TONS more material.

Re:USENET

[yuriismaster]

There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.

I wholeheartedly agree. Although I'm kindof limited by what hasn't expired yet, its a reliable source of high-quality and fully tagged mp3's.

For the interested:

• BNR2
• NewsLeecher

Are the two that I use. They work really well, although NewsLeecher is 15-day shareware.

Re:USENET

[Anonymous Coward]

USENET just doesn't have a pretty interface.

When the jocks and the bimbos say "How can I get free music?" Kazaa and the like have had a simple pointy-clicky install and a little search field 'enter the name of the song'

USENET is guru-esque by comparison: most people haven't the foggiest idea what NNTP means.

Hell, how are newbies even supposed to find out where to get the good stuff?

Re:USENET

[HD Webdev]

Yes, the quality on P2P isn't anywhere close on average to what is on USENET. Serious traders have a on-line reputation to uphold. That does not apply to P2P in the same manner.

Also, 'USENET' doesn't sound as cool as 'Napster' and other similar applications in news stories. So, USENET gets left alone by the media and general public.

And, with low-cost USENET hosts that have 30+ day expire periods and ignore cancel posts, it's much better to have 1 reliable source instead of 1,000s of P2P sources with various upload speeds/queues going on and offline constantly.

Re:USENET

[HD Webdev]

Also millions more: People who don't want to deal w/USEnet (I'm one of them).

EXACTLY!

That's one of the major reasons why the quality/quantity of good files is better on USENET.

People who won't bother to learn how to use USENET or download an application to do it for them get filtered out. Serious traders spend an hour or so learning how to use USENET and often keep quality sets of files on-hand so that they can post 'FILEFOO (requesting: FILEBAR)' and be assured that they will get the exact file they want in return.

OTOH, P2P is full of tons of crap that people don't even realize they are sharing because they can't be bothered to RTFM. Example: Search for NOTEPAD.EXE and then browse the users and you'll see that often you're looking at their WINDOWS directory.

Re:USENET

[antiMStroll]

Shhhh! Ix-nay on the uality-quay talk! I like Usenet just the way it is, a fountain of the bizarre and unfamiliar. Last thing I want is for it to become another Britney bucket.

Re:USENET

[Uncle Fud]

And the best thing about usenet is the ability to discover -new- music through the newsgroups and posted reviews, which you'll never get on p2p. If I know exactly what song I'm looking for, and it's a well known tune by a well known artist I will go p2p, but if I just want to hear some new (to me) music, usenet is the only way to go.

Re:USENET

[HD Webdev]

Shhhh! Ix-nay on the uality-quay talk! I like Usenet just the way it is, a fountain of the bizarre and unfamiliar. Last thing I want is for it to become another Britney bucket.

Oh crap. I forgot the first rule of operation USENET!

Re:USENET

[Anonymous Coward]

How bout you shut the hell up and not tell everyone about this, thank you. People like you ruin everything for everyone.

What do you think will happen when usenet gets noticed say good bye to you say good bye to your 4 mb/sec downloads.

You think the big ISP's with ties to TV, Music, Movies etc will let it stick around. Thanks for nothing asshole.

Re:USENET

[HD Webdev]

How bout you shut the hell up and not tell everyone about this, thank you. People like you ruin everything for everyone.

Actually, keeping it a Big Secret will ensure its eventual demise because of RIAA or other similar organizations. The RIAA knows quite well what a serious threat USENET is and has been. They're just waiting for the 'right' time to attack. They can't do that now because it would force a direct confrontation between ISP's and the RIAA. RIAA doesn't want to do this for obvious reasons.

Already, it's often difficult to get an ISP representative to give out their news server address because they say they don't know what USENET means. Many ISPs now don't offer in-house USENET as it is.

If this trend continues, all major ISPs will drop default news server access with accounts and the RIAA wrecking ball on USENET will begin to take it's toll.

Re:USENET

[Tom]

True. However, over here few ISPs carry the alt.binary.* hierarchy. :(

Re:USENET

[Anonymous Coward]

Because thinking that Usenet is a panacea of safety is as retarded as thinking that Kazaa is. If it wasn't for Kazaa or BitTorrent, your Usenet server with all of its access logs would be in the crosshair of the RIAA/MPAA. There's nothing 'anonymous' about uploads, they just have to acquire a different server's logs. And they will if P2P apps go out of vogue and your beloved Usenet comes into style.

Re:USENET

[hesiod]

> USENET is still superior: Anonymous uploading of files can be done

I would use it if it were easy to find an NNTP server. My Comcast Broadband (AFAIK) does not have a Usenet server, and I don't know of any free ones. Can you name a few? Two? One really good one?

Re:USENET

[HD Webdev]

Can you name a few? Two? One really good one?

How about dozens?

The subscription servers are much better overall. There is a list with reviews of them here and here.

++Article text in case of slashdotting++

[Anonymous Coward]

... so forget your self-serve

I will not scan my own groceries. If stores want me to do that, then offer me a discount. I am doing work for them. How does this save them money when they still have an employee at the end of the self-scanning aisle packing the groceries? At Giant Eagle where I shop, the cashier also bags and does a lousy job at it. When they had a bagger and a cashier, the two of them talked so much I wondered if things were being handled correctly.

I really dislike grocery shopping and think the stores are run for the benefit of the employees and not the customer. I could go on and on about my grocery store complaints. I have complained to Giant Eagle, but it doesn't matter. One of my biggest gripes is how they pack the bags. And even if you use the self-scanning line, someone at the store packs your bags.

I find anymore that we have self-service and not customer service. I have stopped shopping at big department stores and instead favor specialty stores where I receive personal service. Try finding someone at Kaufmann's at lunch time to answer a question. The store has very few clerks per floor. And all they do is run the cash register.

KIMBERLEY BOYD
Zelienople

(rolls the dice and hopes the mods RTFA and have a sense of humour today...)

Re:++Article text in case of slashdotting++

[Ogive17]

The u-scan lines (as they are called here) are not for the benefit of the store, per se, they are for the convienence of the customer. One employee can basically cover 4 express lanes at once. Sure you can make the argument that the store is benefiting also by being able to serve more customers quickly with less man-power, but to them it barely makes a ripple in their budgets.

The point is?

[Erwos]

"reminding everyone how past/present behavior of the RIAA and its members is an even worse model of values..."

Two wrongs don't make a right.

-Erwos

Re:The point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

lisa: two wrongs don't make a right, bart.
bart: dad!
homer: lisa, two wrongs make a right.

Re:The point is?

[e_AltF4]

My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative.
Two words for her: Yeah, right.

Re:The point is?

[Quixote]

True. But his argument is more along the lines of "Physician, heal thyself".

If you walk into a police station with outstanding warrants against you, complaining of a mugging, the cops are going to catch you first before they go after the mugger.

How many times have we read about pot growers who call in cops to complain of a burglary? And guess what? The cops catch them first.

If the RIAA is complaining of a crime, they must make sure that they themselves are innocent of such.

Re:The point is?

[NanoGator]

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Ugh. I'm tired of this cliche.

It's a battle, not a super hero ethics test.

Re:The point is?

[Tim C]

But of course - you *are* a criminal, and you're stood talking to the cops. Of course they're going to arrest you before going after the one(s) who wronged you.

They still go after them too, though. Extending your example to near-breaking point, the cops will arrest the RIAA, then go after the copyright infringers while the support staff back at the station are processing the RIAA.

How about saying my experience is crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trying to treat things that can be coppied freely like property that can't is simply bullshit morality, and I think by now everybody knows it, but too many people are scared to just plain say it. Maybe they don't want to hurt peoples feelings, maybe they just don't want the social stigma of the brow beaters saying "you hate artists", maybe they're just holding out hope for a "compromise" so everybody can just get along, I don't know?"

Why don't you become an artist and find out, instead of trying to lead us to a premade conclusion?

Re:How about saying my experience is crap!

[argoff]

Why don't you become an artist and find out, instead of trying to lead us to a premade conclusion?

I am an artist, and a programmer, and a musician, and a writer. Maybe not a great one, but neither is 99% of the crap out there. But I guess I just don't count unless I have the millions in backing from some mega-monopoly.

Premade? Cmon, anyone who cares enough to think about it from a perspective other than, "I wanna haphazerdly luck out on some creation and sit on my ass and collect a million bucks in royalities", is going to come to the same conclusion I did.

Re:How about saying my experience is crap!

[ramblin billy]

*rant*
You absolutely do count, as does your opinion, but only when it comes to YOUR work. Trash it, give it away, transmit it to the universe. Just don't tell me YOU can decide what I can or can not do with MY work. Consider that you might sit down and reach a different conclusion if YOU could "sit on my ass and collect a million bucks". Who are you to decide what attitude is proper for me? If it takes all my time to create quality work, do you expect me to give that up so I can pay for a place to live and food to eat? If you believe in equal value transactions why should you trade your stellar quality work that took a decade to perfect for something I dashed off on a napkin last happy hour? How about this deal - I'll do my best to provide something you like - you give me some money so I won't starve while I make it. This 'right to copy' shit is logically flawed. The cost of making a copy is NOT the cost of creating the content. Following your logic - doctors, lawyers, and journalists shouldn't be paid either. After all they've already been educated, it doesn't cost a doctor anything to use a stethoscope. Maybe cabdrivers only deserve gas money - the automobile's just equipment - like instruments and recording equipment. In your world musicians don't deserve to be compensated for buying their equipment, why should anyone else? Get real - if one person gets it free - all people should get it for free. Or should someone else pay for your free ride? If I want to encrypt my music 9 ways to Friday you have NOTHING to say about it. If I want satan his unholy self to represent me YOU have nothing to say about it. YOU can pay my price or hit the road. If you take my content without my permission - call it 'sharing' or 'exerting your right to copy' or 'rebelling against the Evil Empire' - you are stealing from me! Quit your bitching and create something excellent. Then see how you like someone telling you your time and effort mean nothing because it's so incredibly easy to copy your work. I'm really not greedy, after all, I traded this post for yours.
*/rant*

billy - I aplogize for any personal allusions, I mean 'you' in the generic sense

Re:How about saying my experience is crap!

[argoff]

You absolutely do count, as does your opinion, but only when it comes to YOUR work. Trash it, give it away, transmit it to the universe. Just don't tell me YOU can decide what I can or can not do with MY work.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say ... just substitute the word "copy" for the word "work".

Who are you to decide what attitude is proper for me? If it takes all my time to create quality work, do you expect me to give that up so I can pay for a place to live and food to eat? If you believe in equal value transactions why should you trade your stellar quality work that took a decade to perfect for something I dashed off on a napkin last happy hour?

YEAH! I totally agree, the parent post to mine was the one going off assuming that I didn't know crap about the perspective of an artist? WTF

How about this deal - I'll do my best to provide something you like - you give me some money so I won't starve while I make it.

I like that deal, "paying for a service" truely is so much better than "imposing copyright monopoly".

The cost of making a copy is NOT the cost of creating the content.

Allright now ... are you some kind of hidden genius that is just trying teach me how to make my points better? Once again, BINGO! That is just too insightfull! That's why business should be concentrating their resources on creating content that makes their services more valuable that can be shared freely, and not on content that gets the most hype whose distribution is controlled (and why hollywood sucks and why copyrights suck even more).

Following your logic - doctors, lawyers, and journalists shouldn't be paid either. After all they've already been educated, it doesn't cost a doctor anything to use a stethoscope. Maybe cabdrivers only deserve gas money - the automobile's just equipment - like instruments and recording equipment. In your world musicians don't deserve to be compensated for buying their equipment, why should anyone else?

THANK YOU AGAIN, I don't pay those people because they have what they already got, I pay them because they have skills and experience I need or want to experience. PLEASE! I BEG anyone to show me one goddam musician who will turn away 5000 people paying $50 bucks a head to see him perform live in concert because they won't respect "his copyrights".

... (rant) ... you are stealing from me!

That's funny, you still have your original copy, I haven't touched it. Now what was stolen again??? Once again, stealing is defined by what is no longer in your posession, not what is gained by someone else.

Quit your bitching and create something excellent. Then see how you like someone telling you your time and effort mean nothing because it's so incredibly easy to copy your work.

I DID. Go back in my history and re-read my essay "A Bitter Protest Against Copyrights". That was at least four years worth of study, and work - and had been in the making since 1998. I didn't hear a thank you, but I'm sure you're gratefull ... otherwise you wouldn't be comming back for more. :)

And one more thing, I paid a shit load of money to get an RHCE (red hat certified engineer) - and I get paid a very decent salary to use technology that anyone can copy freely. Funny thing is, nobody is telling me that my effort "means nothing". In fact, I'm more in demand, and have gotten paid more than MCSE's at EVERY place I've worked!

And one more more thing. BILLY ... JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS IN EVERY SITUATION DOEN'T MEAN THAT THE TRUTH IS RANDOM OR INCOHERENT OR A FEELING. IT'S MEASURABLE APPROACHABLE AND LEARNABLE ... AND EVEN BETTER PEOPLE ARE MADE TO DIFFERENTIATE TRUTH BY DESIGN FROM T

Re:How about saying my experience is crap!

[ramblin billy]

Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say ... just substitute the word "copy" for the word "work".

The words 'copy' and 'work' are two different words with two different meanings. Try substituting 'copied' for 'created' in "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." Not quite the same meaning is it? Are you trying to say you recognize no difference between the rights of the man who creates a work of art and a man who makes a copy that the creator does not want him to make? You can't make an argument by changing a word in my statement then saying 'see - you agree with me'.

I like that deal, "paying for a service" truely is so much better than "imposing copyright monopoly"

Copyrights are a way to insure that I am paid for the service of creating the content. It is a philosophical construct (like all beliefs and laws) that gives me the right to control the use (including copying) of my original intellectual product. Because YOU can not produce that content the only place you can get it is from me. If you take it without my permission you are stealing. Stealing is not " defined by what is no longer in your posession", to steal is defined as " To take (the property of another) without right or permission". And just what property of mine are you taking? You are taking the information contained in the file you copy. It doesn't matter that I also retain that information, if you got it from me and I have not given it, you have 'taken it'. This 'copying is not stealing because you still have a copy' assertion is one of the more self serving bogus arguments used to support your view. Words can not be swapped in and out and redefined to suit your purpose. What matters is what is in YOUR possession that was not, not what remains in mine. Would you assert that a spy who broke into a laboratory and photographed the plans for a nuclear missile did not steal them? Put another way - if the control of the use of my original content is the method I use to secure payment for my efforts, that control represents real world value. When you take that control from me and transfer that control to you, you are stealing real world value. It's irrelevant that you decide not to charge for further copies, every copy you distribute represents potential real world value you have taken from me. You can not possibly know how many of the people who received free copies from you would have paid me for the same information. The media file which contains the information is irrelevant because it is the information (remember information economy?) that represents the value. Even by your definition you have taken potential sales from me - you have stolen them. Please don't be stupid enough to suggest they are not worth anything - Pink Floyd has been around a long time, but people still buy the albums.

"I BEG anyone to show me one goddam musician who will turn away 5000 people paying $50 bucks a head to see him perform live in concert because they won't respect "his copyrights"'.

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The one situation has NOTHING to do with the other. This is another example of a favorite but invalid, technique used to support your arguments i.e. 'the RIAA has a record of ripping off musicians and suing grandmothers, therefore there should be no copyrights'. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Anyone who uses arguments this logically flawed should be ashamed of themselves. The real pity is that there are a great many VALID arguments that support the opinion that the RIAA is not good for creativity and should be watched very closely. Using invalid and transparently flawed arguments just lets them point at their opponents and say "see, they're fanatics - what they say is idiotic and doesn't make sense".

"And one more more thing. BILLY

Re:How about saying my experience is crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Put another way - if the control of the use of my original content is the method I use to secure payment for my efforts, that control represents real world value. When you take that control from me and transfer that control to you, you are stealing real world value."

Hehe. Now you all know why I prefaced my comment they way I did.

"billy - gee, thanks for being sensitive - but you really don't need to worry about me"

I wouldn't worry about the OP either. It's easy to dismiss what one doesn't have to depend upon.

Re:How about saying my experience is crap!

[argoff]

The words 'copy' and 'work' are two different words with two different meanings. ....

Yeah, but that original statement wasn't a statement about the nature of work, it was a statement about appropiate bountries. That's why the word copy fit in so nicely. Get it.

Copyrights are a way to insure that I am paid for the service of creating the content.

That's bullshit, thats like saying slavery is a way to insure that people are provided for in return for picking the cotton fields. Why don't you add in how freed slaves are being stolen from the plantation while you're at it. It's not about theft, it's about out of bounds controll. Get it.

And one more thing, play as many semantics games with the word "theft" as you wish. The bottom line is you are trying to apply the same moral values to the removal of physical property as with copying information. And I quote "This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The one situation has NOTHING to do with the other. This is another example of a favorite but invalid, technique used to support your arguments" ...

Well the fact is, everyone goes screaming that getting rid of copyrights is wrong because the poor artist has no way of recompensating his efforts without them, so then I point out a way like concerts, and then they declare that am using logical falicies because I'm shifting the argument away from proving that copyrights are wrong. Well excuse me, you are on the side that wishes to impose massive restrictions on what people can copy. The burden of proof is on you, prove that it's right, prove that there is no other reasonable way to compensate productive creativity. I'm sorry all the shit that's going on with the *AA is really hurting your proof, but that's you're problem not mine.

Re:This is quite an amusing ironical double-standa

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you steal now? Coldplay?

How is this guy a professor??

[Anonymous Coward]

His rebuttal doesn't give the impression it was written by someone with high intelligence or common sense. Maybe I am confused.. Is this guy a professor at a junior college?

Re:How is this guy a professor??

[thedustbustr]

You read geek news, and have never heard of CMU? Climb back under your rock.

Re:How is this guy a professor??

[Eggman27]

I've actually met Roger - I had the opportunity to work with him a couple months ago. He is quite intelligent - he teaches computer science and has developed some pretty kickass music software. He was involved in Audacity and was also one of the head guys on the SmartMusic practice software. And CMU is no junior college...

Re:How is this guy a professor??

[pyrator]

Maybe I am confused

The Internet is a confusing place to be when you're a troll.
Perhaps some research beforehand might have clarified things before you posted.
In what way does the letter not give the impression that it was written by someone with high intlligence or common sense?
Try and clarify your thoughts before you post and perhaps you might be taken seriously.

Re:What's next... assassians?

[__aaclcg7560]

Did I forget the smiley face to indicate that this is a tongue-in-cheek reference? Sheesh...

But let's look at this seriously instead...

1. Conservatives have been complaining for years about left-leaning professors, judges, and the media for going against conservative "values" (which includes capitalism).

2. The Bush Administration has looked the other way when it hands "terrorists" over to third-world nations with reputations for using torture during intergorations.

3. The Bush Administration would blame the United Nations only to deflect any blame from itself.

The RIAA and the Bush Administration represents the same thing: Power corrupts absolutely.

Oh, yeah. I'm a Republican who voted for Junior the first time but didn't make that mistake the second time. Yes, I held my nose when I voted for Kerry. The choice came down to picking the lesser of two evils since "None Of The Above" wasn't running last year.

Re:sick of the RIAA stories

[Anonymous Coward]

"you won't be able to take shit for free that other people want you to pay for"

We seem to be doing a pretty good job of it at the moment, bitch.

Need More articles like This

[irefay]

In the fight against the **AA's one or two articles will not do a whole lot when the **AA's are in the spotlight all the time "informing" the public about the evils of user controlled information. If there is a consitent outcry from regular people that are not being sued by the **AA's then mabey we would get somewere. Im not advocating the theft of software, however the **AA's are way out of line.

OXYMORON ALERT!

[Travelsonic]

"powerful leader in curbing theft of copyright materials on campus."

Does anybody else see the oxymoron-esqueness in this statement?

Profit model

[Anonymous Coward]

My buddy said the music industry needs to update their profit model.

I told him they had.

I have vowed never to purchase a CD new again. Exercise my right as a capitalist and vote with my dollar.

Re:Profit model

[Anonymous Coward]

I have vowed never to purchase a CD new again. Exercise my right as a capitalist and vote with my dollar.

Only a few more congressmen to pay off, and you won't have that right not to buy anymore.

Re:Profit model

[sabat]

When your vote is worth jack-shit, then your vote is worth jack-shit. You're a feather in the wind: completely meaningless.

Re:What's next... assassians?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to pull you up on point 2. They don't look they other way, it is the cia that have been in there teaching these nations how to torture, just like they did in egypt which helped sow the ground for todays terrorist troubles. That and the Bush administration are comitting acts of torture themselves in guantanamo. oh sorry, that isn't torture as they have redefined the word so that only killing someone can count as torture.

Re:sick of the RIAA stories

[Travelsonic]

you won't be able to take shit for free that other people want you to pay for"

So.. software companies want me to pay for really expensive photo editing software, or word processors, but I can get legal, free alternatives that are quite good.. wait, you didn't mean it like that did you?

Downhill Battle

[xeno-cat]

You provided the perfect in to plug a group that thinks they way you do:

http://www.downhillbattle.org/

In particular click the "Learn more" link and read the "Read before you leave" links.

Kind Regards

Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[Simonetta]

The RIAA companies stole the public domain. They bribed the politicians to pass laws that indefinitely extend the copyright period on all published materials since the first third of the 20th century.
Under the legal principal that creates the authority of copyright protection, artistic materials must become part of the public domain after a set period of time. Bribing politicians to continously extend this period on materials that have reached the limit of their copyright is stealing from the public. It's like agreeing to pay a certain amount for an item only to find that the seller has doubled the price on the day that last payment is due... extending the number of payments that you have to make for another fifty years into the future.

And they haven't done this just once; they have done it repeatedly. Which establishes a pattern of confirmed criminal behavior in a court of law. And confirmed criminals don't get to decide what the laws are going to be for everyone else.

No civilized people or government should stand for this.

When we copy and freely distribute, we are reclaiming what has been stolen from us already. Reclaiming it from the people who have committed the biggest crime in artistic history; the theft of the public domain.

It must be pointed out over and over again:
The RIAA has no legal, moral, or ethical authority to call anyone criminals.

Plain and simple in any culture, at any time.

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[darjen]

Bribing politicians to continously extend this period on materials that have reached the limit of their copyright is stealing from the public.

The problem is that the government even has the power to make these laws in the first place. A strong state will likely be persuaded by any amount of cash that someone will give it. If we would just take away their power to legislate such malarky it would handily solve this problem.

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[geekee]

Your post is basically using the same argument that a rapist might use to defend himself when caught raping a prostitute. He'd say something like "she had no moral ground to call me a criminal".

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[bardothodal]

great post

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[alex_guy_CA]

While I agree that the RIAA and politician cabal that broke faith with the constitution of our country to extend the copyrights are scum, it seems to me that if you are going to use this as your basis for copyright infringement, you should limit yourself to art that is X number of years old. Personally, I never feel the slightest twinge of guilt for downloading music of artist who are now dead.

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[Pecisk]

I completely agree with you. You know why? Because when artist creates something, it takes lot of inspiration and sources from community, world, everything. They should give back.

But thanks to copyright extend which is only for companies for the place - to protect their investment in their "Intelectual Property" (I start to threat those words lika swearing) - it won't happen.

Yeah, US, go on. Common sense and some kind of equilibrium if we talk about laws doesn't apply to you - only pure money.

(rant mode off)

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what happens when the state is weak.

It can't stop criminals, who will do even worse.

Anarchy/Libertarianism is a philosophy of the immature.

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[elpapacito]

No RIAA didn't steal anything, watch your language. RIAA and amici suggest that copyright violation is the same as stealing goods, but it quite simply is not because the "good" isn't substracted from anyone physical avaiability. In fact if I copy one person book/dvd/good on which copyright can apply even without the owner permission I'm NOT taking the good away from the owner avaiability, I'm only making a copy of it. Therefore the amount of goods possessed isn't reduced by my copying, what is reduced or annihilated according to RIAA is the profit their amici claim they should obtain on _each copy_ of the good.

As far as I know the logic behind copyright is that it should work as an incentive (under the form of an exclusive right to copy) to reproduce more copies of copyrightable goods thus helping general public access the good and as incentive to produce more copyrightable goods, the incentive being given under the form of a _temporary monopoly_ over the economic exploitation of the work.

With the decreasing cost of communication , the ability to copy the entire content of entire libraries in seconds and the possibility to reduce stock of unsold books/dvd/etc to ZERO by delivering the good by internet we entered a second phase of Gutenberg Revolution in which copying instruments are so cheap and powerful anybody can have access to anything.... at a unitary cost -really- very very close to zero.

YET what we see is demonization of copying and sharing of virtual goods which are easily copied by their own nature and conveniently designed to be attractive to buyers.

Producers expect buyers to remain ignorant and not to understand that the revenue on each copy of the good is enormous when compared to the copying cost ; many producers would like buyers to believe the revenues are mostly enjoyed by artists/technicians/actual producers of the good while they usually see only fractions of the revenue ; some other would like buyers to believe unlikely incredible investments in some copyrighted good were made ... therefore they should enjoy monopoly on the good even after the death of the real author(s) ; other still use the argument that copyright "lives" a number of families..quickly and conveniently forgetting copyright doesn't cause anything..it's only an instrument designed to protect creativity that is now exploited to protect powerful private interests not interested in creativity but in bottom line blind and abstract monetary profits.

In other words many copyright -exploiters- (unlike some producer) would like you to believe anarchy would reign supreme without enforcement of copyright..nothing copyrightable would be produced anymore without copyright ...quickly and conveniently forgetting the trade-off for their privilege is that of making the copyright good _ factually accessible and avaiable_ to the greatest number possible of citizen...which is made by reducing the price (which beats 99% of piracy except the extremists believing anything should be always constantly free)

Of course if those who live off exploiting copyright wish to continue to do so..they're free to do that without welfare and protection from State.

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[Lifewish]

Good post. One point:

No RIAA didn't steal anything, watch your language. RIAA and amici suggest that copyright violation is the same as stealing goods, but it quite simply is not because the "good" isn't substracted from anyone physical avaiability.

However, extension of copyright, as distinct from copyright violation, does subtract good from everyone else. This is why I personally would consider it to be a significantly worse act than just making a dodgy copy of something.

Re:Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[Anonymous Coward]

No civilized people or government should stand for this.

The RIAA has been able to extend the copyright terms over and over again because the public at large allows it to occur. Americans have become extremely lazy and complacent; they don't understand concepts like public domain and the trade-offs made by copyright holders. Fortunately, they are slowly getting an education in copyright law as the result of RIAA lawsuits.

Re:sick of the RIAA stories

[Anonymous Coward]

So is downloading music from "Sherman" Networks illegal!

Speaking of hypocrisy....

[mblase]

Music artists and the RIAA are seen as hypocrites hawking anti-establishment messages and then looking for special rights, powers, and protection from the establishment to maintain their empire.

I never realized how fundamental this is to the RIAA's "problems" of the day. On one hand, they actively record, promote and profit from gangsta rap which doesn't just talk about killing policemen and living the "bling-bling" life, it's practically propaganda for it.

And then they expect us to listen when they tell us not to steal copies of music? That's like Merimac Caverns at midnight calling the kettle black.

Re:Speaking of hypocrisy....

[Thing 1]

That's like Merimac Caverns at midnight calling the kettle black.

I like how you fixed the traditionally erroneous quote. At least, in my experience, the pot has always been green (perhaps tinged with a bit of red, if I'm lucky).

Yep, those RIAA butthead will sell you a

[Senor_Programmer]

10cent bit of plastic for $15 and when it degrades to uselessness and you grab a copy off the net try to put your ass in jail.

To paraphrase NWA, 'Fuck the RIAA'

Su Senor Programmer

What's being pirated?

[cution]

Sharing copyrighted music isn't theft; it's copyright infringement.

Re:What's being pirated?

[geekee]

" Sharing copyrighted music isn't theft; it's copyright infringement."

Is the phrase "You stole my idea" correct English? According to you, people must say "You copied my idea" instead.

Re:What's being pirated?

[potpie]

This is a dispute over legal terms, not correct English.

Re:What's being pirated?

[humankind]

Theft implies product being stolen from its rightful owners. That remains to be seen!

Rationalizations

[shmlco]

Trying to treat things that can be coppied freely like property that can't is simply bullshit morality, and I think by now everybody knows it...

So the argument is that now because it's easy to steal someone's work one should be allowed to do so?

If I spend MY time, MY money, and MY talent creating something of value and then I offer it for sale you are NOT entitled to it just because you want it and it's easy to steal.

If I CHOOSE to give it away you're welcome to it.

If not, you're free to decide it's too expensive and NOT buy it. But you're NOT free to steal it and benefit from my work without compensation.

Re:Rationalizations

[argoff]

If I spend MY time, MY money, and MY talent creating something of value and then I offer it for sale you are NOT entitled to it just because you want it and it's easy to steal. .... If I CHOOSE to give it away you're welcome to it.

You're RIGHT!! You are entitled to do to your original copy everything and anything you want to. But psst .... COPYING IS NOT STEALING .... Infcat, if you stole my geo metro I think I would be very violated ... but if you want to copy it then hell ... have 10 ... in fact there are 10 million out there ... I am not violated .... it's BULLSHIT MORALITY! Get it. You already CHOOSE to spew it all over the planet ... and now you want to controll how people use information at their disposal ... well too bad, that is your problem, not mine, sorry you got your feelings hurt, but it's NOT STEALING!!!!!

Re:Rationalizations

[shmlco]

...but it's NOT STEALING!!!!!

I offered value for value. You obtained, used, and enjoyed the use of that value without consent and without providing the requested compensation.

Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent.

You know it's theft. If it didn't have value you wouldn't take it, and you wouldn't spend your time and money copying it, and you for damn well know you're doing so without consent.

Like I said, just rationalization.

Re:Rationalizations

[argoff]

... and down a little further (as if you didn't notice) on the same page you'll see this one:

theft

n : the act of taking something FROM someone unlawfully;

... Theft is not defined by what another gains, but by what you loose posession of, not to mention that it's common sense. You still have the original copy, and I didn't trick or force you to give me any services either, maybe you feel I did, but that is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT!!!!

Re:Rationalizations

[shmlco]

You still have the original copy, and I didn't trick or force you to give me any services either, maybe you feel I did, but that is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT!!!!

Sorry, but in effect you stole the results of my efforts, my time, and my money without offering me due compensation.

That which you would steal has VALUE, no matter what the medium or mode of delivery. The value of music or a program is in the music and the program, not in a twenty-cent piece of plastic.

Pehaps in some future Star Trekian utopia everything, including food, clothing, housing, and so on, will be free. Until that time, however, all creative people have to offer are their creations, for which they would like fair compensation so they can eat and send their kids to school.

If you don't want to compensate them, or don't think the requested compensation is fair, THEN DON'T STEAL THEIR MUSIC, SOFTWARE, BOOKS, or GAMES anyway. You're not entitled to them, no matter how you rationalize it.

Or if you must steal, then at least try swiping it off the shelf at Best Buy, and stop being a coward about it...

Re:Rationalizations

[hesiod]

> in effect you stole the results of my efforts, my time, and my money without offering me due compensation.

You are stretching terms beyond their actual scope. It's similar to arguing that "Free Speech" means you can freely threaten the president's life, or the stupid hypothetical of shouting "fire" in a theatre.

Word limit

[bluGill]

Most news papers have word restrictions for letters to the editor. The shorter the letter (while still making a point) the better your chance of getting in. If you write a long letter it has to be excellent, while two sentences just needs to be good.

So while I agree I wanted to see more, I suspect that more would not have been published. He is a professor, so I would have expected that he would be given some extra room because of this position. (That might have been what got this published at all in fact) Still he needs be limit his message as much as he can while still making a point, and that leaves no room for long arguments.

from RIAA president's original letter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Forty-one students at CMU and Pitt are cited in the initial round of i2hub lawsuits filed last week. Combined, they've illegally shared a staggering 144,000 files, including more than 68,000 music files"

Why is the RIAA mentioning a number (144,000) that doesn't have to do with infringement of its property? (why not just mention the 68,000 number?) Also, does anyone else find these numbers odd? It seems like music downloads would account for much more than half of all downloads (granted, i2hub makes it easy to download movies, but people can only watch so many movies, so they're almost certain to acquire more music than movies or other files).

Who's stealing from the artists? Here's one:

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a fellow who did a whole bunch of recording for Dorian Recordings, an audiophile label.

He never received any royalties. At first he just figured his recordings weren't selling (that's what they told him--how should he know any different--they do all the bookkeeping and tracking of sales!). Later he found out his recordings were indeed selling like hotcakes and he should have been receiving substantial royalty payments every quarter.

Despite repeated promises from Dorian to get the situation resolved "real soon now", he never did receive a nickel, and it turns out that (according to him) just not paying royalties at all was essentially Dorian's policy. While all their big name recording artists (in the classical music world) were wondering where their royalty checks were, the company principals were busy building & buying million dollar homes in various exotic locations around the world . . .

According to my friend, this sort of treatment is more or less the norm in the recording industry. They give you sales records that you strongly suspect are doctored or just plain wrong (but how do you prove it?), pay you royalties 1/10 or 1/4 what you have good reason to believe you should be getting (again, how do you prove it?), pay you occasionally instead of quarterly (per the contracdt), or just "forget" to pay you altogether until you pester them repeatedly, then pay some small amount to keep you quiet.

He says that as near as he can tell, Dorian really didn't know how much they owed people. But of course there is a BIG reward to them for being so incompetent . . . if they were organized and competent they would have to fork over the royalties. But with "gosh, we're so disorganized around here!" and a stupid grin, it all works out for the best . . . for them.

See Dorian's web site and some articles about their bankruptcy: 1 2 3.

Incidentally, the same friend says that music royalties are indeed his largest single source of income. But--royalties from sheet music, music books, and music-related books, NOT recordings.

It's Funny, you morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Insightful ..

Re:It's Funny, you morons

[Adam9]

Didn't you get the memo? Karma is good.

Re:sick of the RIAA stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, he doesn't. Here's what I don't get: people will happily use FOSS software for its free beer/freedom value but they're aren't as insistent about the same thing for their music/movies*.

Essentially, there's a class of people who are quite interested in getting $$$ stuff for free. Because it's like raping a hooker--ya take it, they still got it--they don't feel particularly bad about it.

What I really don't get is the lame attempts at morally justifying their actions. If you're gonna steal stuff and ya get caught, be prepared for the worst. If you're gonna steal stuff for ideological reasons, ya better be like MLK in a Birmingham jail and willfully accept the consequences.

It's takes severe dissonance to see yourself as a dissenter when you're really just an Abbie Twatman-ish deviant.

*it always amuses me how the hipsters who bitch "it's all corporate crap" slink off to their machine to download some Blink182. Counter-cultural consumerism at its finest.

Re:Uphill Battle (rebuttal)

[stretch0611]

I agree that the MPAA and RIAA will fail but I find your reasoning flawed.

People have been use to getting free music for decades -- ever since the birth of radio.

Yes and they still get free music over the radio for free. They have always paid when they wanted a copy that they could play at their convience. I know very few people that record from the radio.

People used to feel the money paid on records was mostly in the physical process of making records and distributing them, but now they see with 10 cent CDROMS and 1/10 of a cent per Meg of disk space that playback mediums are now virtually free.

Intelligent people realize that the price of records is more than the physical medium. Distribution, Marketing, Packaging and Artwork, Studio costs, Artist Royalties, RIAA staff costs, and some profit for everyone in the chain including the retail store.

A lot of people feel recorded music is all advertising. Why would you listen to an artist if you hadn't already heard the artist and why would you pay for something you've already heard?

What are you talking about? Recorded Music is advertising? Tell me, what does Megadeth advertise? Or Elton John, Wu Tang Clan, or even Britney? This point of yours is idiotic.
You listen to artist you have not heard because your friend tells you about the or you hear it on the radio. You pay for it (or pirate it) because you want to listen to it more and at your convienece.

In the past people bought records they heard on the radio only because they didn't have a convenient way to record just the songs they wanted and to index, label, store, and retrieve them.

No, they bought records because they wanted to listen to them. (at their convienence.)

In the past people didn't feel like chumps for plunking down $10 for and album and $15 for a CD, because there weren't millions of others are getting this stuff for free. Let me make the point clearer - even if the RIAA scares someone into not downloading music from the net, the willingness to pay full price will also be diminished because the tantalizing free stuff lies just a wire away.

In the past there were still bootleg tapes from live concerts, and you were still able to tape an album that your friends bought. While it is easier to get free music now thanks to the internet, it did exist before. Also, some people still refrain from d/l from the net because they think it is stealing even if the RIAA is a bigger theif. They believe the artists should be compensated.

Some portion of the potential audience feels that musicians are over compensated, immoral, prima donnas that can't actually perform outside a recording studio without 100 retakes and then special post processing to improve their marginally capable voices.

I don't think the artists are over compensated, I think the RIAA is. I am not sure about this figure but I believe even the popular mainstream artists get only 25 cents per CD sold after all other costs. However; I do agree with you that artists lately can't actually perform and must use post processing. The studios have gone from people with real talent to people that are pretty with no talent.

Some people prefer live music and think money paid for a live show is the only real compensation music artists should expect.

Creating songs is work. A hit isn't written in ten minutes (usually). They should be compensated. Radio stations make money from advertisers when the encourage people to listen to the music they play. Should the artist not be compensated for that. In a different scenario, I am a programmer; Should I be paid only if my programs are run? or should my employer pay me to write them in the first place.

Music artists and the RIAA are seen as hypocrites hawking anti-establishment messages and then looking for special rights, powers, and protection from the establishment to maintain their empire.

RIAA, yes, some

usenet is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Usenet is better. No, it's not secure, encrypted, etc. like I2P, but it doesn't have to be; it's legal.

Re:usenet is better

[Professor_UNIX]

Usenet is better. No, it's not secure, encrypted, etc. like I2P, but it doesn't have to be; it's legal.

If it's the only method of distributing copyrighted works, do you really think it will remain unscathed? They're just going after the easy targets now, but it'd be trivial to start targetting the major Usenet servers that hold copyrighted binaries.

Re:It's pluckin time.

[AoT]

So thats what happened with justice and love.

Or to sum it up...

[Laebshade]

Pot, meet kettle.

Republicans....the Party of Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush signed the DMCA too!

Get it right

[Ferment]

It's the estate tax - not the death tax.

Your ass was fired - you were not right sized.

And it's copyright infringement, not theft .

Dennis Moore

[CaptainCarrot]

Sure, as long as they're lupins!

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, dumdum dum-de-dum...

theft / infringement

[potpie]

About the use of these terms:

The RIAA uses the word "theft" for its immoral stigma (something "infringement" lacks), while at the same time making cases against people for "infringement" because of the economic benefits to gain from winning such a case. I'f I were sued by the RIAA for "infringement," I'd call them out on it, point to articles where they call it "theft," and demand it be treated thus.

My coworker's kids do this....

[HockeyPuck]

So my coworker tells me of his kid at college, that the university has a internet2 connection. He tells stories of pulling down whole movies in 10minutes.

My BS to this is... these are public universities funded with my TAX DOLLARS. While I was in school, you could get suspended and possibly expelled for abusing the computing systems (downloading pr0n, running a MUDD).

I'm sorry but how does downloading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on DVD constitute the correct use of a universities network let alone internet2?

So if you look at what the internet2 is supposed to be http://www.internet2.edu/about/ you'll see such reasons for the internet2 as:
* Create a leading edge network capability for the national research community
* Enable revolutionary Internet applications
* Ensure the rapid transfer of new network services and applications to the broader Internet community.

Where does "Trade Maroon5 CDs" fit under this? Sounds like they (the universities and the leadership of the internet2 group) should be cracking down on these guys.

-

Re:My coworker's kids do this....

[JesusCigarettes]

I'm sorry but how does downloading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on DVD constitute the correct use of a universities network let alone internet2?

Well, go talk to the universities about that. Because they're the ones who provide access to Internet2 from residential areas in the first place.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Universities pay MASSIVE amounts of money to purchase enough bandwidth for students to access the internet. In order to save money, traffic is efficiently routed through Internet2 whenever possible at these schools.

Every time I look at the Brown, Harvard, or any other I2 school's web site, the traffic is routed over Internet2. This is fantastic when you need to download large files like Linux ISOs because it's faster than using the commodity bandwidth link and saves the university a great deal of money over the course of a year. The effect of this routing on Internet 2 is virtually negligible, given the amount of bandwidth available.

Your tax dollars paid for part of Internet2, and it's used to reduce the cost of the commodity bandwidth link which your tax dollars pay for. So really, it's a good thing. There's no reason to bitch about it. i2hub uses Internet2 exclusively, but every other file sharing application would efficiently route traffic in the same way at any school that has enabled it.

And if you have a problem with students using the Internet connections at their Universities for non-academic purposes... well, feel free to monitor all the usage. Or just accept that students pay for most of that internet access, and that the efficient routing of traffic through a faster network with virtually free bandwidth saves the schools money. That might make sense.

Re:My coworker's kids do this....

[MikeBabcock]

To be the devil's advocate, you answered your own question. Internet2 is about researching new and interesting ways to do the Internet thing. Dowloading huge movies in a few minutes is a new and interesting "thing" to do with the Internet.

One of the biggest bragging rights of Internet2 is always how much bandwidth they can push -- but working on the algorithms to keep pushing that much data at full speed with low overhead across millions of people is hard. Having students downloading movies is arguably research.

Re:My coworker's kids do this....

[HockeyPuck]

I can generate huge amounts of bandwidth in my lab with load cannons from Spirient or Agilent...

Re:Who's stealing from the artists? Here's one:

[ta bu shi da yu]

Sounds like this was criminal. How did the directors get away with this?

Re:Uphill Battle (rebuttal)

[10101001 10101001]

>>Some people prefer live music and think money paid for a live show is the only real compensation music artists should expect.

>Creating songs is work. A hit isn't written in ten minutes (usually). They should be compensated. Radio stations make money from advertisers when the encourage people to listen to the music they play. Should the artist not be compensated for that. In a different scenario, I am a programmer; Should I be paid only if my programs are run? or should my employer pay me to write them in the first place.

Creating a program is work. Good software isn't written in ten minutes (usually). Would you also state that all programmers should be compensated?

And speaking of programmers, I think your analogy is obviously flawed. Musicians are more than just the creators of songs (programmers), they're also the player of songs (computers/IT) that make it work. Now, IT staff is paid on a regular basis because they're not reproduceable. While commodity software is sold very cheaply (OSS is probably the best example of this) and minus some actual cost for setup and the computer to run it, using such software is almost free.

The fact is that the biggest group that has any legitimate fear of a lack of copyright, which is what would be required for the original hypothesis, is programmers precisely because unlike musicians they can't just go down to every pub or restaurant and try to get a gig. Yet, Richard Stallman and a lot of people, including me, realize that there's still a lot of "niche" jobs in producing all the software that's out there as there's such a great "need" for it--RMS's take on the whole morality of it is a separate issue, in my mind.

The fact is, if anything the selling of CDs at $10/album is hurting most musicians. Part of the reason in the past for eating out was for the live entertainment. Places paying hourly royalties to the RIAA to play muzak or the like does nothing but benefit them and some unnamed artists. I want musicians who can play at the drop of a hat. I want musicians who can improvise and have real visible talent. It doesn't seem to me like it's demanding to much to have the free market at work, where the service of performing, which has real visible worth, is what is most handsomely rewarded.

death tax for rich people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the estate tax removed, by a bill that lefties refer to as the "Paris Hilton Benefit Act"?

Re:if that's the best the anti-RIAA

[nc_yori]

Heh, way to miss the point. Regardless of what you may think of Louis Armstring's music, the issue is that the RIAA is responsible for infringing on the creative process of many artists who would otherwise be well recieved by the consumer public. Continuing in this vein, the RIAA's assertion that they are a champion of manufacturer/consumer morality is...how would one put it...bullshit.

Re:Uphill Battle (rebuttal)

[rizzo420]

i know it's not the RIAA, but radio doesn't play the variety of songs it used to. however, i also don't believe it's entirely the media companies... i am pretty sure the RIAA has a role in this as well... of course no one will ever know for sure...

i don't mind paying for a CD, in fact, i do so regularly... however, i have one issue with who gets paid... RIAA. why should they get money? you also don't address the issue of what percentage goes to all of those people in the chain. i believe the artist, the person doing the most work, the person without whom the CD would not exist, gets less than 1% of what i pay for a CD.

you point about people buying records because they wanted to listen to them at their own convenience is true... however, you are wrong in assuming that if they had the ability to record off the radio, they would. i remember when cassette tapes were big, people would request songs on the radio so they could make a mix tape. you couldn't do that when only vinyl existed.

i believe the artists should be compensated... i don't record cd's or pirate music. i will download a few songs from an artist that i want to hear more of and then depending on how much i like it, i'll go buy the album. otherwise, i generally get rid of the files. it's like a preview. can't really do that. and back when only vinyl was available, you couldn't make a recording of your friend's record. concerts may have been bootlegged, but it wasn't easy to make copies of it.

artists are not overcompensated by the industry. they're overcompensated by everything else that goes along with being in the industry. that's how the industry can get away with giving them the shaft when it comes to paying them. however, what the industry does is give the artist a false sense of luxury. MC hammer (remember him) went on spending binges when he was popular. he disappeared quickly and when he was no longer in the spotlight, he ran out of money. is it all the industry's fault? no. did they give him a false sense of security? most likely. if he got paid what he should've for his work, would he have been in such bad financial state? definitely not. and yes, i do agree that artists today all suck and should not be picked up by the industry. the industry is looking for pretty faces, nothing more, nothing less. they don't care about talent.

creating a hit can take minutes, or it can take months. if it takes months, it generally means that someone is purposely trying to create a hit. if it takes minutes, they're just making good music and have talent. you'd be surprised how many of those great songs from the 60's and 70's were written in under an hour. those are the people who deserve the money, not the songwriters the industry hires to give people like britney a big radio hit. those people are in it for the money, not the art. they lose credibility in my opinion. however, your argument against performing music is flawed. if the artist can only create it in the studio with all that processing and producing, how can they be considered a true musician? ashley simpson is popular, that's a fact. ashley simpson is post-processed, also a fact. ashley simpson, when performing live, lip syncs. fact. why should i give her money? she did nothing but sing and it's not a good voice because it was created for her by a computer. i should give whoever wrote the program to fix her voice the money.

a lot of major label artists are hypocrits. in fact, most of them are. they're all about being anti-establishment, fuck the police, fuck the gov't... but i'm with the RIAA. however, there are also a lot of major label artists who are anti-establishment and advertise that through their music... tom petty's last dj album for instance... full of anti-corporate messages, released by warner. many major label artists are also in favor of file sharing. the indie artists are a different story... but i'm not talking the "indie" style of music because that means nothing. modest mouse is major label... t

The Real Thieves

[Sundroid]

The point the professor is trying to make is: Which is worse -- a person stealing food items from a supermarket, or the supermarket chain's CEO cooking its book to get a fatter bonus check?

I'm glad the professor also taught him a history lesson -- the history of RIAA is filled with chapters of discrimination (against many black musicians who are now considered legends), deceit (rampant accounting fraud), and now outright oppression of music downloaders.

Branding music downloaders as "thieves" is the most bizarre event in the modern legal arena. If lawyers began filing lawsuits against people who record movies and music off the air, against students who borrow a Photoshop master to make a copy, against corporate employees who take pens and pencils home, we would have a chaotic judicial system. And yes, the activities described above are all technically illegal.

This whole front page post is a joke

[geekee]

and further evidence that the /. community (or at least the editorial staff) wants unenforcable copyright (except for GPL). The best the rebuttal can claim is that there have been some crimes in the past and at present against musicians, so the RIAA members have no moral ground to defend their copyrighted material. That's pathetic. If RIAA members have stolen from you, you have every right to take them to court, just like the RIAA has every right to sue over copyright infringement.

Re:This whole front page post is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

If RIAA members have stolen from you, you have every right to take them to court, just like the RIAA has every right to sue over copyright infringement.

Sure. As soon as you send a check to my lawyers,
we'll get started.

If I had been PAID for my work, then I'd have
enough to pay for the lawyers myself. But I wasn't, so it's up to you.

Start writing.

Re:This whole front page post is a joke

[sabat]

TYPICAL republi-nazi response -- everyone's a millionare and can afford lawyers, so there's yer justice.

FUCK OFF you fucking fuck.

Internet2 for universities only

[SKPhoton]

I'm at one of the schools with people being sued for sharing music on Internet2 and I know 2 of the people personally.

What is the RIAA doing on that network in the first place? It's meant for university networks only. Copyright issues aside, they're not allowed on that network in the first place.

Re:Internet2 for universities only

[st0rmshad0w]

You honestly can't think that your fellow students are above selling one another ou do you?

Re:Internet2 for universities only

[shdragon]

SKPhoton,
Sorry to hear the news. I've gotten a couple nasty grams from the *AA's for people on my network.

hmmmm..... all the mindless dribble about RIAA this & yet I've yet to see someone reply to exactly how the RIAA gained access to a private network they were not to have access to. If someone has an answer, please point the way.

If I get some free time, I'll search the archives here and some other tech oriented sites for info (I'd suggest you & your friends do the same) to see if there's an answer to your question.

I'd like to see some peeps in the /. crowd shine some light on this w/o mere speculation about how they "think" it happened.

Re:Internet2 for universities only

[mako1138]

The only thing I've heard is that they bought a VIP account. Simple enough.

Re:Internet2 for universities only

[Big_Al_B]

Why is it so surprising to people that the RIAA had some access to I2?

[mere_speculation]
Last I heard, admissions offices didn't forbid employees of organizations from enrolling in colleges or individual courses. And sometimes organizations even reimburse employees for tuition. If any amicable RIAA employee is enrolled in an I2 member institution, the RIAA has enough access to gather "evidence".

Alternatively, occasionally "private" organizations partner with universities on research projects, and then use that research in a self-interested manner. Who's surprised by this?
[/mere_speculation]

To be clear, I'm not condoning anyone's business practices here. I'm just adding some context to the discussion.

Re:Internet2 for universities only

[Anonymous Coward]

It's meant for university networks only.

Not quite. It's meant for research and development collaboration between member organizations. While most members are universities, they do have corporate, affiliate, and association members also.

The full list of members and sponsers includes several non-university entities.

they're not allowed on that network in the first place.

Contrarily, Warner Bros. is listed as a corporate member of I2 and, I'm guessing, also affiliated with the RIAA.

Re:Internet2 for universities only

[Big_Al_B]

Just as an observation, an AC in this thread noted that Warner Bros. is an Internet2 member organization, and presumeably is also affiliated with the RIAA, either directly or through a music subsidiary.

It seems the fox has a condo in the henhouse.

Re:Internet2 for universities only

[shdragon]

hy is it so surprising to people that the RIAA had some access to I2?

[mere_speculation]
Last I heard, admissions offices didn't forbid employees of organizations from enrolling in colleges or individual courses. And sometimes organizations even reimburse employees for tuition. If any amicable RIAA employee is enrolled in an I2 member institution, the RIAA has enough access to gather "evidence".

Alternatively, occasionally "private" organizations partner with universities on research projects, and then use that research in a self-interested manner. Who's surprised by this?
[/mere_speculation]

To be clear, I'm not condoning anyone's business practices here. I'm just adding some context to the discussion.

I didn't take your statement to be one of enodrsement, but it does raise an interesting point I hadn't considered.

Good for him!

[interstellar_donkey]

I'm glad this professor stepped forward. I'm no fan of the RIAA, and hope more people in positions of authority step up to this. We need two things to keep happening:

1. Keep reminding people that file sharers are doing nothing more then sharing. They are not making a profit off of what they are doing, are obtaining nothing physical from the recording industry, and receive nothing of value other then knowledge they helped others out.
2. Keep reminding people that the music industry is corrupt, and if we want to start seeing fairness and equity in the music business, going after the loop-hole payola, the monopolistic control of the distribution mediums, and the exploitation of artists would do a lot more for musicians and music fans then going after peer to peer participators.

Yes, what both do is immoral (questionably) and illegal, but to put it into perspective, file sharers are casual jaywalkers, while the music industry is a habitual drunk driver. When I hear RIAA folk talking about how peer to peer sharing is killing the music industry, it's as absurd as a drunk saying jay walkers impede his drive home from the bar.

Legitimate terminology

[Tannii]

We are headed into a sea of entertainment choices, and while the MPAA and the RIAA would like to make sailing these seas a cash cow with DMCA

With the use of words such as sailing and sea I can finally see how the term "piracy" might some how be legitimate!

However if that statement read "We are heading into a mountain of entertainment choices, and while the MPAA and the RIAA would like to make scaling this mountain a cash cow with the DMCA," would we be calling a copyright infringer a yeti?

Courtney Love...

[AyeRoxor!]

Surprised this hasn't already been posted:

Courtney Love Does the Math

Fantastic article about how RIAA appears to the Artistry

(Link to GCache to avoid slashdotting)

Re:Courtney Love...

[puke76]

Wish I had some mod points.

When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.

The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.

Steve Albini's The Problem with Music is another great one.

Re:What's next... assassians?

[Anonymous Coward]

at least they got the first 6 letters of " assassians" down to an art.

moral value

[n2networksolutions]

Ironic the RIAA accusing people of not having moral value. What a joke. Jeremy Whittaker MCSE MCSA CCNA http://www.n2networksolutions.com/ Arizona Computer Consulting

The Buzz Biz

[StratoChief66]

I know its very popular to bash RIAA/MPAA on Slashdot; God knows I've done my share of bashing and read and agreed with enough myself, but I have one serious question to ask slashdot: How does the new business model create buzz?

I will ignore the problem that people can make unauthorized copies of music even if an unevil RIAA replacement is the distributer because I for one would pay for such music even though I am a massive copier under the current system.

As I see it, the primary purpose of modern RIAA/MPAA is to create buzz around their bands and groups to increase exposure and sales. I would like to see in practice (or well thought out theory) how this buzz engine would work under the new music economy where the corporation doesn't take all the money and overcharge.

This is what I see as the catch in the new digital music distribution system, do I have to wade through hundreds of crap bands to find good ones? How will MTV decide what should be played if the RIAA aren't telling them what we like. I'm serious about this. I like many pop groups (and tons of the off the wall stuff, but I DO like much of the catchy pop stuff) or maybe more accurately heavily promoted groups. I like being told what others like under the current system as it does some of the crap sorting for me, even if it brings up Britney Spears with it. (ick!)

Although the RIAA robs the artists and consumers blind it does do the promoting for the artists so that enough people know their work to make concerts sell out. (where the artists really make their money as I understand it) Anybody's thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Re:The Buzz Biz

[m50d]

Collaborative filtering. Things like irate radio and audioscrobbler/last.fm let you find the kind of music you like. Add a weighting towards new artists and you're there.

Re:The Buzz Biz

[Anonymous Coward]

thats where i come in, have you ever heard of a dj?

Re:The Buzz Biz

[glasse]

Check out http://www.webjay.org/, decentralized taste for a digital age, or something like that.

Most of the songs I've downloaded recently weren't songs I've heard on the radio, but songs I've heard my girlfriend sing/play on her laptop. Even so, the concept of only pushing a few artists' songs to make "buzz" around them, while ignoring a large number of other artists' recordings, seems a little inefficient to me.

Ethan

More about this..

[zorander]

Dannenberg, while an idealogue, is a pretty smart guy. I just completed the course he mentioned in the letter, and while the discussion he inspires among students can be biased on the borderline of predatory, he's remarkably adept at inspiring this sort of discussion without leaving the realm of fact. Though I appreciate that, I don't generally appreciate the blood-frenzy that seems to envelop the more extreme liberals in the class whenever he brings these sorts of topics up.

He has a tendency to stick some slides into the middle of his lecture that typically draw attention to some (invariably) republican inconsistency. He'd then encourage a five to ten minute discussion on the topic which spiralled progressively from merely anti-republican to borderline socialist, then finish his lecture on digital signal processing or whatever.

The point he misses is that government intervention has also helped us to get into this mess. The RIAA and MPAA and their stranglehold on media were, in large part, caused by legislation that supported that control (most recently, the DMCA). I don't think we can trust the same government which brought this to be to do something about it. It's just not in the cards.

I typically support a minimal government intervention in business, since congress is pretty much owned by business--the companies' buddies in congress will not allow a law to do any thing that hurts the bottom line for them. This pretty much guarantees that any changed to the DMCA will have a minimum positive effect for the consumer alongside a massive media impact. The spiral of lies continues.

Perhaps the government should be as separate from the concerns of business as it is the church (W aside). After all, though the government has massive powers to help business, business strives to enslave as much as the sad mixture of the Roman Catholic church and the Roman givernment ever did. While the United States can and should make a healthy environment for business, and help protect the United States economy from foreign interests (just as we'd protect a church here from a rival religious faction overseas who intended to harm them), it shouldn't be used by big business to enslave the people. By drawing a line in the sand that grows both ways, the representation of the people can only increase, and most of us would agree that this is a good thing.

Re:More about this..

[Anonymous Coward]

His letter had nothing to do with government intervention.

You cannot seperate 'business' from government, because businesses are typically composed of citizens, and their actions are the actions of citizens, and their actions affect citizens. It's not a matter of what people believe, or what irrelevant space pixy that they pray to, it's actual real life.

In choosing not to regulate business, you are actively choosing to allow businesses to obtain whatever power over people that money can buy. In choosing to regulate business you are actively choosing to allow businesses to obtain whatever power over people that money can buy.

When government isn't involved in the regulation of business (as if this were actually possible in any pure sense), any monopolies that form naturally (capitalism tends to breed oligopolies but monopolies pop up too) are going to basically act in whatever manner they choose to. They can flex their muscles through controlling the supply of goods that people need, or really think that they need. They don't necessarily like the company, its ethics, or anything of the sort but if it's the only source of a product or the only one that they can afford, they will buy it. People don't want children working in sweatshops to make tennis shoes, but they'll buy Nikes.

While government, like any aspect of real life, is influenced by power (money) it is also given a yolk in the form of the "hearts and minds" of the citizenry. They may be ignorant, they may be stupid, most of them may not even actually make use of their ability to influence the government and therefore its regulation over businesses, but enough do to put a damper on the some of the excesses of people and organizations with wealth. And this slushy brake becomes a seperate market in which businesses have to compete in order to strangle competition. They can't just crush their competition in the business arena, they must also secure as resources enough legislators, who in turn must secure enough voters, in order to win.

So it doesn't become a matter of keeping government out of business to protect the citizens from business-run government, because people with money will always have power over the lives of people without it. It's merely a matter of reducing the effectiveness of just having money on wielding supreme power. It's to help prevent a land ruled by Andrew Carnegie.
And maybe it can't prevent it, and it can only slow it, but it's definitely better than your laissez-faire capitalistic tendencies.

Solution for the "Problem"

[KwKSilver]

I have a solution for the RIAA and MPAA that will completely solve their problem with "digital piracy." It is completely within their power, won't require courts or laws. But they won't like it. Quit producing content in digital formats. Simple. Then stuff like CDs and DVDs can be put to work on something useful, like storage and transfer of worthwhile data instead of alleged "entertainment" from Hollywood & recording studios.

Re:Solution for the "Problem"

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, some people _enjoy_ the crap released by the recording industry.

(I am not one of these people)

anybody know about the history referred to?

[belmolis]

I was interested by some of the history mentioned in Prof. Dannenberg's letter and wonder if anybody can fill in some details. One interesting point was the statement that the music industry sued the company that produced the first recordings of Louis Armstrong for patent infringment. I am vaguely aware that there was discrimination against black musicians, but what does that have to do with patent infringment? The other interesting point was the claim that NBC and CBS kept out technological improvements until ABC broke their monopoly. What technology did they suppress? Why?

inapropriate comparison

[themusicgod1]

rape is a violent crime.

copyright enfringement is not.

The whole idea of comparing copyright enfringement to rape is absurd, and insults people who have been raped.

JAP did this, and had to shut down

[iowa119900089]

someone might remember the same idea, it was the program called JAP. It worked so great that the german gov't decided to force the operators to add a backdoor for them and force an upgrade upon all users. The idea works great, but it will be shut down immediately. Too bad rotten eggs spoil anonymity for the rest of us. But the child molestors, real terrorists, and those pesky music downloaders must be caught. I don't see why people aren't convincing their senators and congressmen to vote out the laws. The number of people against these laws surely outnumbers those for them. How many /.'ers have actually written to local papers to spread the word, or talked to their legislative representatives?

Re:JAP did this, and had to shut down

[gremlins]

Well one because we can't fight the all mighty dollar. For every person who would actually talk to their congressmen and senators the RIAA and MPAA give those same congressmen and senators enough money to buy 10 people's vote.

But I don't think they can stop this kind of thing for ever. And i2p isn't a total safe guard. Given enough want by the government they can track you down. i2p is just a way to make the cost of finding you sufficiently higher to deter most people from figuring out it was you.

Another thing is that in the case of a child molester or terrorist I would argue that the government would need to show probable cause before they just tap your network. So although the music and movie downloaders are doing illegal activities there is no real probable cause to tap my internet over yours. But in the case of child molester or terrorist there should be other suspicions that give them probable cause for a tap.

Now you could say that using i2p is enough probable cause but I don't think that would stand up in court. There are lots of reasons for wanting anonymity and so long as not all of them are illegal then you can't really outlaw it. Thats why bittorrent hasn't been outlawed and why you can still buy bongs in the USA when weed is illegal. So although you still can't do illegal things with i2p, just using it shouldn't damn you.

Cary Sherman issues the industry's death cry...

[ph4s3]

... And through consistent education programs, they can continually remind users of the value of copyrighted works...

Is it just me, or is the death cry of a middleman always a "reminder" of how important they are to the process of uniting sellers (creators) and buyers (us)? It strikes me as interesting that one must be reminded of the value of something through "education programs," when, if those products had actual value, the buyer would know it inherently.

You know what pisses me off? That I *do* find value in music and enjoy it very much and yet I can't get a non-protected err, non-"enhanced", CD from a particular artist that will play in my damned car's CD player ('99 honda accord, stock system so it is definitely not unique). Here I am, willing to part with $15 for a physical disc with liner notes, cover art, lyrics, and some minor biographical info and I'm not able to find one that I can actually use in the one place I want to use it. I don't have anything against iTunes, but if I buy an album, I want the physical object for my library. It seems like the musicians' fans ARE the market and the RIAA has missed the boat by focusing on illegal activity instead of what the market actually is. Which goes to my point. What happens when an entire industry has lost sight of the market? They try to remind the public of their supposed value and then someone or something arises to serve the real needs of the new market to the detriment of the previous (most likely) monopoly.

R.I.P. Recording Industry Ass. of America

*reads the article*

[Anonymous Coward]

*hums a bit*

*notices that his favorite P2P client has still gone unnoticed by the RIAA and MPAA in their press-releases for some reason*

*slips into said client and downloads some Metallica, just to piss someone, anyone off*

Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Really hurt them, huh!

Same crap, different century."

Well considering that a burned CD/DVD is an exact copy while a cassette recording isn't. I don't think that you can do an exact comparison. While the complaint is the same, the end results may not be.

Re:Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[unclethursday]

While you are right that a digital copy is exact from the source, the argument is something the RIAA has been putting forth, even before there was an official RIAA.

When radio was introduced, they fought long and hard, and they weren't the RIAA yet, to make sure music never got played on it under the argument "people will just listen to their favorite songs on the radio! We'll never sell another record again!"

Instead, the radio made them more money than they could have imagined.

When recordable cassette tapes were released, they again fought long and hard to try and make them illegal, because "people will just record their favorite songs off of the radio (which we once said was evil, but never-mind our old argument)! We'll never sell another album again!"

Again, same issue, nothing bad happened to them.

Now it's file sharing will make people never buy albums again! Odd, there's still a LOT of albums being sold, all over the world, and for the longest time they couldn't "prove" any damage because they were breaking all sorts of sales records and forecasts... until they finally raised the forecasts up so high, in the middle of an economic recession, that there was no way they would ever reach those numbers. They artificially made "lost sales" by saying how they didn't meet predictions, and that was only done by raising forecasts beyond any reasonable number.

And the RIAA has only themselves to blame, really. They turned down the idea of digital distribution in the first place, figuring no one would go for it. Then the file sharing programs hit, most notably Napster; then they gave Napster world attention by suing Napster and making the suit public on news broadcasts and such. Had there been no suit or at least no publicity on the suit, millions upon millions of people who now use file sharing programs might never have even known they existed. Joe Average Internet User certainly wouldn't have known about Napster, Kazaa, etc. without that world-wide attention the RIAA gave to file sharing programs.

And, in a bit of a blast of my own personal taste against the RIAA, it also doesn't help that 99.9999999999% of the music their labels put out is absolute shit, either. Certainly the true lost sales couldn't have happened because every new band they put forth is a "me too!" band, all sounding alike and all sucking just as equally, right?

The RIAA made their bed, by their own mistakes, now they can lie in it while I support the non-RIAA artists I enjoy by legally buying my music off of iTunes (when that has what I want) or buying their CDs at smaller stores that cater to my tastes.

Re:Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[Gentlewhisper]

Well considering that a burned CD/DVD is an exact copy while a cassette recording isn't. I don't think that you can do an exact comparison. While the complaint is the same, the end results may not be.

And even your 320kbps mp3s are exact copies of the original recording.. NOT.

Re:Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[sp3tt]

Even CDs are not exact copies of the original performance made by the artist, it's sampled. Purely speaking, a vinyl record can have greater quality than a CD.

Re:Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[dargon]

Vinyl is only greater quality the first time it's run, afterwhich, the needle has changed the medium ever so slightly. Granted I doubt even a golden ear couldn't hear the difference the second or third time through, but it builds up over time played.

Re:Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[sp3tt]

That's why you use the best equipent there is ;)

Re:Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has always been my problem with this whole copyright infringement argument with mp3/ogg/wma/whatever files.

The copyright supposedly being violated is on a specific recording. Once you change this recording via compression/re-encoding, it ceases to be the the original recording anymore. Unless you're trading the the .cda files, MP3s are nothing more than high quality cassette dupes and (should be/remain) totally legal.

Robin Hood-Appeal to Popularity.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It doesn't make it legal, but it does make it accepted by public. There is whole bunch of laws like this. Driving too fast is illegal, yet everybody does it, and nobody cares. Smoking pot is illegal, but lot of people do it, and nobody cares. In some places, jaywalking is illegal, but nobody cares."

If the "everyone does it" argument didn't work when I was a teenager? Why should it work when I'm an adult?

Re:Robin Hood-Appeal to Popularity.

[jthughey]

The "everyone does it" argument is toted and works just as well as an adult if not better. It may not work in the confines of a legal system necessarily but outside of that boundry it flourishes. It may not be the same exact phrasing, but the message is the same, "That's the way the flock is going, so I'm going to follow." For example, take the standard p.c. Iraq response, "Well, now that we're there we should really stand behind it." It also gets used in less controversial topics as well. Why do you think we have things like "fashion" and "fads". Do you think the pet rock would have succeeded if this kind of mentality wasn't a staple in our society?

Re:Robin Hood-Appeal to Popularity.

[lahvak]

Depends on what you mean by "work".

As I wrote, "everyone does it" does not make anything legal, so it will not get you off the hook with the law.

But it does work in the sense that nobody will call the cops when they see you, nobody will try to apprehend you, nobody will go out of their way to provide information about you to cops.

For example: if you go and mug somebody on a street, most people around will yell and call the cops, some may try to catch you, and when the cops arrive, everybody will be teling them things like "he was wearing a pink shirt with green polka dots and bright yellow tie...", and "he ran that way..."

When you smoke pot on the street, or jaywalk, nobody will give a hoot.

RIAA History Lesson

[rtblues]

THE RIAA VERSUS THE PEOPLE WHO BUY MUSIC AND MOVIES "New developments have made piracy easy and delightful. The Recording Industry Association of America is up in arms and up in the air over these developments. They have tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce legislation prohibiting this 'unauthorized re-recording'. How ironic this is. These are the same record companies that acquiesced years ago in allowing radio stations to play their records without fees despite the inscription "not licensed for radio broadcast - for home use in phonographs" on the labels. The record companies shafted live music then and are now being hoisted by their own petard." - Charles Suber - From his regular column in Downbeat Magazine, "The First Chorus" - February 18, 1960 Yes, 1960. As most people know, the RIAA is currently staging a battle over piracy that's going all the way to the Supreme Court. What most people probably don't know is that the RIAA has been singing this same song since the advent of the radio, the tape recorder, the video tape recorder, CD-ROM burner, DVD-ROM burner, and now, especially, Peer-to-Peer software clients, or file-sharing. So, according to the RIAA, the radio was going to kill the sale of LPs. Then, when it didn't, they were certain that the tape recorder would. Now people would simply record from another old nemesis of theirs, the radio. When that didn't happen, they waited a while and then really freaked out when the video recorder came along. This was going to kill movie theaters and television. When that didn't happen, it wasn't long before the RIAA was crying about CD burners destroying the sales of CDs. When this didn't happen, they waited and are now really upset about another new development, file sharing, which will surely kill the both the music and film businesses. After all of these years one would think that these folks might finally get it right. You see, the fools missed out again. In the infancy of file sharing, the RIAA and the record and film companies should have seen what was coming and gotten ready with a viable, affordable and fair offer to consumers, offering them exactly what they wanted and what they were going to soon get for free. Incredibly, the RIAA missed the boat again. A really big boat too. Instead they are back to the same strategy they so unsuccessfully employed in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, which is to complain, threaten, harass and decide that your friend can't let his friend borrow some music or video that he has. Now they want the government to tell us that our friend can't borrow or music or films. Ironically, CD sales reached new levels in 2004 and leading the pack of buyers were those that routinely download music from the Internet. It has been statistically proven that people who download music buy more CDs than those that don't. Even Apple saw this one coming, and has gotten on the boat, sort of, considering the file format they are offering is not MP3, WAV, but in their own proprietary format, something they have a long history of doing. Then there's the new Napster. If you discontinue the service, meaning you stop paying them, your files that you downloaded and paid them a monthly fee for doing so, suddenly become unplayable. What are these people thinking? Doesn't the RIAA realize that it is precisely this community of people, the ones that they want to litigate, that are the same people that are leading the way and setting future trends for the industry? Downloading music and films is obviously a very preferred method of obtaining these mediums, so why didn't the RIAA see this coming, like the rest of the world did, and get involved in it early? The answer is arrogance and the audacity to put themselves and their profits above the artists who create it and the people who buy it. "The record companies shafted live music then and are now being hoisted by their own petard." - Charles Suber - 1960 - Downbeat Magazine.

A-fucking-men

[sabat]

This is worth some karma points just to say this:

a-fucking-men

oh,

a-fucking-men, Mr. Dannenberg,

a-fucking-men.

FUCK THE RIAA and its self-righteous, cheating membership.

All you goddamn fucking RIAA supporters (who are usually *BSD users, too), go ahead and mod me down. I don't give a shit.

My coworker's kids do this....Speed Bump.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if you have a problem with students using the Internet connections at their Universities for non-academic purposes... well, feel free to monitor all the usage. Or just accept that students pay for most of that internet access, and that the efficient routing of traffic through a faster network with virtually free bandwidth saves the schools money. That might make sense."

Or we could simply throttle your access down to residential broadband speeds. It will not stop people from doing illegal acts (technology can never do that). But it will take some of the benefits out of it.

"Or just accept that students pay for most of that internet access"

I don't accept any such thing, and unless you work in their accounting department. I doubt you could prove otherwise.

Re:My coworker's kids do this....Speed Bump.

[dangitman]

Or we could simply throttle your access down to residential broadband speeds. It will not stop people from doing illegal acts (technology can never do that). But it will take some of the benefits out of it.

And also reduce the benfits for legitimate purposes. Is this the way society should work? That the majority gets punished for the acts of a few?

CMU is *totally* mp3-unfriendly!

[EvilStein]

Dude, my girlfriend dragged me from Mountain View, CA to Pittsburgh, PA to go to Carnival and see "buggy."
I was already suffering from a nasty nasty flu, but still went because I thought "Hey, CMU will have mp3s and lots of bandwidth!"

Man, you guys totally let me down. I couldn't find one single mp3 that I wanted. What a bummer!

Oh well, at least we hit up the Steak & Shake on the way to the airport... ;)

Re:CMU is *totally* mp3-unfriendly!

[REggert]

That's because Computing Services routinely checks public file shares for copyrighted materials. If they find you have copyrighted movies or music in a shared folder that is not password protected or has an easily guessable password (e.g., the machine name or the folder name), they ban your computer(s) from the network for no less than one year. I know someone that this happened to, and it sure sucked for him not to be able to access email or the Internet from his room.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you from setting up a password-protected share and telling all your friends what the password is.

Then again, it's been almost two years since I graduated, so the policy might have changed since then.

Re:CMU is *totally* mp3-unfriendly!

[EvilStein]

Yeah, I figured that it was something like that. Oh well. No mp3s, but I got to hit up Dunkin Donuts! (None of those out here either) :D

Re:Uphill Battle (rebuttal)

[Maxo-Texas]

Should the artist not be compensated for that. In a different scenario, I am a programmer; Should I be paid only if my programs are run? or should my employer pay me to write them in the first place.

Ask your self if you should be paid every TIME your program is run anywhere for all time.

That's the straw that broke this camel's back. I work hard on programs and I'm paid for them and that's it.

Why do they rate special treatment compared to any other product/program/etc.?

Hmmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Better idea. What's stopping those who've been robbed of their royalties from filing a very large class action suit against the RIAA?

Re:Hmmmm....

[senatorpjt]

Duh, the RIAA took all their royalties. How are they going to pay the lawyer, especially when the RIAA can just hire another few lawyers with the money they stole?

Rebuttal OF ....

[Anonymous Coward]

... not rebuttal AGAINST.

Re:This is quite an amusing ironical double-standa

[Anonymous Coward]

I've stoled yo' momma's virginity, BITCH

Re:Uphill Battle (rebuttal)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, programmers vs. software companies is a rather similar analogy to musicians vs. the RIAA members. Both programmers and musicians are undercompensated.

Most of the time, copyright protection does not inflate the salary of the programmer at all. It is helpful in getting the CEO another house, though.

Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Given that, how is any system but totalitarianism a workable one, if we take the premise that the law is always right?"

Do we gain a better system by assuming the laws are always wrong?

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[NixLuver]

Simply because someone points out that assuming all laws are right leads to some unpalatable conclusions, it doesn't necessarily follow that he or she is suggesting that we should assume all laws are wrong. I think a good example was given where widely recognized human rights violations are legal but wrong. I think the point was simply think.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[senatorpjt]

Do we gain a better system by assuming the laws are always wrong?

No, but we most certainly DO gain a better system by assuming the laws are not always right.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[drsquare]

Is the law not right in this case? Should it be legal to copy copyrighted material? Do you realise this would mean the end of the entire entertainment industry?

You know, a law isn't wrong just because it means you can't get stuff for free.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[SilverspurG]

Should it be legal to copy copyrighted material?

Absolutely. It has always been and always will be the responsibility of the merchant to look after their supply, demand, and distribution chains. If a particular merchant thinks they have a right to profit by plunking their wares down in the middle of the market, not screening their customers, and selling an easily copied product to any 8-year old with $15... then good riddance to them when they go out of business.

This is the real world. No one else gets a break. Dumbass merchants shouldn't either.

Do you realise this would mean the end of the entire entertainment industry?

You're repropagating the biggest line of BS ever written.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[arminw]

...Should it be legal to copy copyrighted material? Do you realise this would mean the end of the entire entertainment industry?...

Copyright is a quite modern legal invention. For millenia, people wrote stories and poems, composed and played music, drew pictures etc. Art, creativity and beauty is innate in humans, a reflection of the Creator. It is not needed as a factor in the theory of evolution driven by the survival of the fittest. If copyright disappeared today, the joy of creativity of many people and their desire to share it with the rest of us would definitely continue.

In most cases, the artists get the least of the money spent for canned, copyrighted entertainment. The biggest losers in the absence of copyright would be countless hangers-on that are now like parasites living off the creativity of a few. Many artists could and do make the most money from live performances. If anyone recorded and broadcast their performance, it would be like free advertising. When that person or group, someone who is truly good, came to town, many of those who heard the recording would pay to hear the live performance. The performers might even consider paying the recording company for the advertising.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[drsquare]

So say there's no copyright law, and some film company spends £100million on making a film. Then they release it, and everyone downloads it for free, or copies it. The film company goes bust, and no new films are made.

Secondly, who are you to tell an industry how to do business? If you don't like the terms of their copyright, then don't use their material. Make your own, and release it under your own terms. You use your copyright, they'll use theirs, and you can all agree not to infringe each others' copyright.

I've yet to hear an argument against copyright laws other than 'I want stuff for free.'

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[arminw]

...I've yet to hear an argument against copyright laws...

I'm not advocating the ending of copyright, but simply replying to your assertion that art and creativity would vanish if there were no copyright. Copyright, like so many other laws are a neccessary evil because of the greed and dishonesty of many, if not most people. Also, I was mostly talking about music. Film and photography are a modern inventions that may need to be dealt with differently.

Perhaps all copyright could be modified to only to restrict the profiteering from copying of a work. If I give a copy of some music to my sister, I am not profiting by it. It is disingenuous to assert that the artist lost money because now my sister didn't need to buy the work. She may like that particular song and buy others from that artist. If I had never copied it, she would never have heard and never bought anything. Wholesale copying over the Internet could be deemed profiteering by the ISP and be prohibited.

Copyright, since it is supposedly for the protection and encouragement of the creative living artist, should enter the public domain upon the death of the creator. Only real live flesh and blood people should have non-transferable or non-assignable copyright, not big fat mega-rich corporations. Copyright should only benefit the creator of the work and society as a whole, not some rich class of investors and stockholders in a faceless corporation.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[Travelsonic]

Is the law not right in this case? Should it be legal to copy copyrighted material?

I guess then DMUSIC is guilty of copyright infringement then :). (HINT: Downloading copyrighted works with permission, as this site shows, is legal and encouraged by independent artists.

Do you realise this would mean the end of the entire entertainment industry?

Are you psychic or something? Did you predict this, or pull it out of thin air? Copyright infringement will not kill the industry alltogether (although I think it should ).

You know, a law isn't wrong just because it means you can't get stuff for free.

True, but on that same token, the law is wrong for being used by corporations in a way that stifles innovation by allowing the bases for creativity to be locked up in corporate control indefinately.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[Travelsonic]

So say there's no copyright law, and some film company spends £100million on making a film. Then they release it, and everyone downloads it for free, or copies it. The film company goes bust, and no new films are made.

This is a totally unrealistic example, nothing but BS and FUD. Some group of people, large or small, will always buy something. If you mean by "...and no new films are made." by that company, then that makes sense, but if you talk about all movie companies, then it is when you approach unrealistic idealology.

I've yet to hear an argument against copyright laws other than 'I want stuff for free.'

You must not have looked hard enough, I can find several logical arguments for reforming copyright laws so they are shorter, ect.

Robin Hood-Thanks for all the MP3's

[Anonymous Coward]

"People are fed up with RIAA, and when they claim that p2p networks will drive them out of business, most people will just say "good riddance!""

Does that include the group presently downloading movies, music, and games? Or is that the group that doesn't have anything RIAA/MPAA/Valve in their posssession, and therefore have already said "good riddance"?

I agree with the professor-TechnoTalent.

[Anonymous Coward]

"With the right hardware and new applications, almost anyone can make, record and distribute quality music."

With the right hardware, Visual Basic, and MSCE certification anyone can be a programmer distributing quality programs.

Re:I agree with the professor-TechnoTalent.

[stanmann]

My rebuttal shall be a list of names
Steve Jobs
Steve Wozniak
John Carmack
Scott Miller

File Trading

[herbierobinson]

To: Roger B. Dannenberg
CC: various department heads at CMU

I read your letter to the Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05123/497993.stm).

Now, let me get this straight. You are basically saying that because the Recording Industry rips off musicians and (to a lesser extent) songwriters it is OK for wealthy college students to do it, too?

Nice.

How many of your "musician friends who cannot get RIAA members to pay them the royalties they are due" think that because the RIAA stiffs them it's OK for everyone else to stiff them, too?

Do you think that College Professors should work for nothing? After all, you should delighted to teach a bunch of ungrateful spoiled children during the day and do your research on the temporal aspects of music performance for nothing at night. And you should be grateful for the opportunity to pay for your own research and living expenses by flipping Burgers at McDonalds while you are doing it. Right? This would solve the college tuition problem for a lot of people!

Herbie Robinson

Re:File Trading

[russotto]

Gotta love it. You show your true colors before even getting to the content.... "CC: Various department heads at CMU". I can't see how to interpret that as anything other than a threat. A STUPID threat, of course, because if Professor Dannenberg sent his article to a Pittsburgh newspaper, he obviously wasn't worried about department heads reading it.

Of course, your content is about as ill-thought-out. If, as professor Dannenburg asserts, the RIAA isn't paying the artists royalties, then committing copyright infringement isn't stealing from them in any way, shape, or form. Using a very broad definition of stealing (not one I agree with), it's stealing from the RIAA -- stealing their ill-retained gains, in fact.

Re:File Trading

[hesiod]

> it is OK for wealthy college students to do it, too?

FYI, not all CMU students are wealthy. I had a very good friend go there, and he was middle-to-lower-middle class. He was just an exceptionally good programmer and got a bunch of scholarships, etc.

This reminds me of the story of Bill Nelson

[pyrator]

To quote

The Story of Be Bop Deluxe's Bill Nelson and How His Record Label Ripped Him Off
Some Day, Artists Will Unite and Put a Stop to This Nonsense
For many years, I've been trying to discover why I have never received any royalties from EMI records for the sales of my Be Bop Deluxe recordings. I've had neither money nor accounting from them since the 'seventies, despite constant re-issues of the product on both vinyl and CD. In the 1980's, when my business affairs were managed by Mark Rye, (expletive deleted,) I attempted to get to the bottom of my non-existent EMI royalty payments. Rye, who was himself an ex-EMI employee, supposedly checked with EMI on my behalf and came back with the answer that the Be Bop Deluxe albums had not yet recouped the advances paid by EMI to the band during the band's career in the 1970's and therefore no royalties were due. Fair enough, I thought. They're bound to recoup before too long and then, perhaps, I'll be paid something.
Time passed and any further enquiries made by me were simply brushed aside with the "not yet recouped" answer. Eventually, I parted company with the troublesome Mr. Rye, finding myself severely financially 'distressed', a situation which had contributed to the rapid deterioration of my marriage and also damaged my health. To put it simply, I ended up in 'a bit of a state.' I was generously helped by a caring friend, David Sylvian who suggested that his own management, Opium, would be prepared to look after my affairs. I had a meeting with David and Richard Chadwick, (David's manager), and Richard eventually became my new manager. Amongst several problems hanging over me at that time was the ongoing non-payment/non-accounting from EMI in connection with Be Bop Deluxe royalties. (And Red Noise too, for that matter.) Richard eventually made enquiries and came back with a similar answer, that the records hadn't recouped yet. Meanwhile, the Be Bop Deluxe catalogue was being regularly re-issued by EMI without any accounting being provided to myself.
A few years later, EMI decided that they would like to make a double 'best of' CD compilation available and contacted a friend of mine, Kevin Cann, whom they employed to oversee the design and general direction of the project. Naturally, Kevin then contacted me to get my input. I explained that I was wary of the whole thing because I was not receiving any royalties for Be Bop Deluxe product. Kevin said that he would enquire at EMI on my behalf as he had a good relationship with one of the staff there. Eventually, Kevin came back to me with the news that, apparently, the records were still unrecouped BUT, the proposed double album 'best of' compilation would tip the balance in my favour and then I would begin to see some royalty payments. In view of this, I gave the project my blessing and liased with Kevin on the development of the package which became known as 'The Air Age Anthology.' This double album duly appeared in the shops but any accounting from EMI was still not forthcoming, nor were there any royalty payments.
Sometime later, a Harvest Records box set was proposed by EMI to document the history of that label, for which many bands, including Be Bop Deluxe, had recorded in the past. EMI wanted to include some Be Bop Deluxe recordings as part of the package. They even went as far as asking me to contribute a written piece for the book that they proposed should accompany the boxed set of albums. The cover of the box featured an especially commissioned painting of many of the musicians and artists featured on the collection of recordings, myself included. I thought that this release would further assist the recouping of royalties and so I agreed to contribute a written essay on my involvement with Harvest and EMI.
Meanwhile, I had been regularly complaining to Richard about the lack of accounting from EMI and he eventually contacted a firm of music business lawyers to look into the matter. Over a period of two years, a very strange story emerge

Re:This reminds me of the story of Bill Nelson

[Anonymous Coward]

> (expletive deleted,)
> Fuck 'em all...

Wow, I wonder what the first expletive was that needed to be deleted while "fuck" did not...

New Business Model - Parasite Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Sue 1,000,000 users for piracy
2) Charge each $5000 for settling out of court
3) Cash in cool $5,000,000,000 of revenue

1) Lobby for a permanent entertainment tax on all americans. ...

Re:New Business Model - Parasite Economy

[penix1]

"3) Cash in cool $5,000,000,000 of revenue"

That is tax free revenue. Settlements aren't taxed. Welcome to the RIAA new business model the OP states they need...Threaten to sue, get tax free money!

B.

Re:New Business Model - Parasite Economy

[stanmann]

You forgot

4) Pay your lawyers ~$100US per hour for ~50 hours per user settlement...
5) Profit?

Re:New Business Model - Parasite Economy

[3terrabyte]

The RIAA already had a 100 million dollar/yr legal department before even Napster started. They're employees.

It takes a lot of lawyers to strongarm all their contract-for-hire musicians. I'm sure this P2P thing is simply overtime for them.

I've answered all this before.

[Es02]

http://yro.slashdot.org/~Es02/journal/101257/

Binary servers

[harmonica]

Do major ISPs really offer newsservers with binaries on them? I thought good binary servers were run by companies that specialize on that particular service.

Re:Binary servers

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Exactly. And they're going to get hammered for contributory infringement as soon as P2P is sufficiently snuffed out for most people.

The INDUCE Act, if it had passed, would probably have had the nearly immediate effect of shutting down U.S. premium Usenet providers.

Re:Binary servers

[stanmann]

My ISP outsources to supernews... and it is a major Cable company. Roadrunner aka timewarner aka AOL aka Warner Bros aka Turner Broadcasting etc also provides a decent quality 7 day expiry Usenet feed hosted locally.

Re:Binary servers

[celerityfm]

Earthlink has some of the best usenet servers I've ever seen. Only challenge is that they cap your downloads on a 30 day rolling basis.

If you really need binaries tho go with giganews or some such. Google is your friend.

How about playing to the audiance.

[Anonymous Coward]

One more thing before I turn in. If all this is truely "think of the chil...er, artist"? Then how come we aren't hearing any stories about the artists who produce games, books, movies, and music, recieving checks in the mail, from their adoring downloaders? Sounds to me like more than one side is playing to the audiance.

P2P is so "last year", try this

[NewtonsLaw]

Here's something I published nearly three years ago and it's every bit as relevant today.

There's no way for the RIAA to track this source of free music and video either.

Sources for figures

[ajs318]

144 000 == number of vacancies in Heaven according to Jehovah's Witnesses

68 000 == number of transistors in a certain rather well-known microprocessor

Record industry execs say...

[The Original Yama]

"I AM ABOVE THE LAW!!!"

(it's a South Park reference, in case you didn't get it)

Re:Record industry execs say...

[AussieVamp2]

which brings up the question how many years in an iso-cube would Dredd give the RIAA honchos?

Re:Record industry execs say...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a B-movie starring Steven Segal?

Cool.

I'll bet you're wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

"but I'll bet it means curtailed development of entertainment in digital form."

Nope. The money is there, people are willing to pay for it. But it probably means we'll have more types and varieties of entertainment rather than a handful of record companies and movie companies telling us and selling us what we we should buy.

The money is there, and capitalism says that when there's money to be made, people will figure out a way to make it.

Just because Sony records may fail doesn't mean we'll have less entertainment, we'll just have less Sony. Big deal.

You are wrong.

[trezor]

• I mean seriously, this is just a guess, it takes maybe a few million at most to produce an album?

No, that's the prudction-costs required to produce and camuflache mainstream crap into not sounding like obvious crap.

I wonder how many million dollars Miles Davis spent when he recorded "A kind of blue", the most selling jazz record of all time. I wonder how many million Deutsche-mark Mozart used to write his symphonies.

No, really. It's just crappy pop "artists" who has no actual content in their music that needs these funds to make their stuff sound like actual music. If you left actual musicians, you know those artists who treat music like art, not a money-making machine, those with a devotion for good music. If you left them to run the shop, these insane amounts of money wouldn't be necassery. Plus we'd get actual music.

Ok, so I'm elitist, but tell me Britney Spears is an artist in the true sense of the word art. I dare you!

Re:You are wrong.

[Omnieiunium]

Not being in the recording industry I don't know. But yah, I have to agree with you, most of what is out there today is pure crap. I mean seriously, it is so phony and fake it's pathetic. That is why I prefer smaller more local bands. Normally it is better then whatever 'mainstream' crap you can get. (Just look at American Idol stars)

Britney Spears is sure as hell not an artist. She is just given stuff to sing, then everyone else makes it better through digital re-enhancment.

Re:You are wrong.

[hesiod]

> most of what is out there today is pure crap. I mean seriously, it is so phony and fake it's pathetic

Yes, and Glam Rock was so true to reality. Err, maybe it was Gangsta Rap. No, not that... uh... OK, Disco! Drugs and sex, that's real.

The RIAA 'cares' about the artist...

[mojoNYC]

...like the cattle rancher cares about his cattle!

paraphrased from a quote from Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture (free as in beer download). This book is the best account of how industry cartels like the RIAA have severely diminshed the public's freedom, in order to preserve their entitlements.

anybody who is interested in this issue (especially those parroting the simplistic 'filesharing is stealing, end of story' line) should read this!

Mr. Sherman, why are you hate freedom?

The xxAAs is like the tobacco industry

[crovira]

YOU are going to figure out THEIR new business model for them and show them how they can keep on shaking down both ends of the markets before they will stop interfering.

After all they have had over a century of failure at associating (every technological advance, from the player piano roll to the MP3 file format, has been fought tooth and nail until they lost,) while they have had over a century of success as being parasites on the artistic world.

I can figure out ANY justification for their existence. Then again, I can't figure out why people smoke cigarettes or gamble.

Sales up 6% Q1

[Colourspace]

Sorry can't remember where I saw it in the past few days but did BMG group not post +6% earnings increase Q on Q for Q1 2005?

this house is freakin sweeeeet

[Danzigism]

Excellent Rebuttal I must say. I love hearing people who the public trusts as the "educated" give their opinions regarding the music piracy issue. This entire issue simply draws the line between greedy and passionate people. its my obligation, and part of my belief of being a good person, to stop those who are greedy.. don't let them suceed in ruining people's lives or goals like they did with ol' Satchmo.. the record industry has been a joke since they fucking started.. do you think they really care about the musicians who really want to get their name out there?? do you think they actually care how GOOD a musician really is? hell no.. they don't care about morals or values. so its ridiculous that they have to use that bass-ackwards tactics to convince people that music piracy is wrong.. its RIGHT if you think like a true artist..

Re:This is quite an amusing ironical double-standa

[wild_berry]

former filesharer, stopped 'stealing' garbage

There are only so many bootlegs, b-sides and other recordings to go with the three albums by the band with Shirley Manson, Steve Marker, Duke Erikson, Butch Vig and Daniel Shulman in it.

Who's stealing from the artists? Here's another...

[No Such Agency]

Despite repeated promises from Dorian to get the situation resolved "real soon now", he never did receive a nickel, and it turns out that (according to him) just not paying royalties at all was essentially Dorian's policy. While all their big name recording artists (in the classical music world) were wondering where their royalty checks were, the company principals were busy building & buying million dollar homes in various exotic locations around the world . . .

According to my friend, this sort of treatment is more or less the norm in the recording industry. They give you sales records that you strongly suspect are doctored or just plain wrong (but how do you prove it?), pay you royalties 1/10 or 1/4 what you have good reason to believe you should be getting (again, how do you prove it?), pay you occasionally instead of quarterly (per the contracdt), or just "forget" to pay you altogether until you pester them repeatedly, then pay some small amount to keep you quiet.

A relative of mine is a writer, and she got the same treatment from a publishing company (actually the largest gay publisher in the US, still pretty small though). Basically, one day they just told her they weren't going to give her any more royalties, even though they were going to keep selling her books. Later she found out they were notoriously unprofessional and had done stuff like that to other people. They just relied on screwing a bunch of poor-ass authors (who write for a niche market and don't make much money even on a good day) who they knew couldn't afford to sue them for the money.

Re:This is quite an amusing ironical double-standa

[hesiod]

> I've stoled yo' momma's virginity

Who thought Jesus would be posting on /. as an AC. Or that he liked Coldplay.

Re:USENET -- how is it possible!?

[Anonymous Coward]

USENET's continued, unfettered existence is truely the greatest internet mystery of our time. My *ONLY* theory as to why it has been allowed to go on like this is that the authorities that be don't want to shut it down for fear of it going just that much further underground and/or it's a good source for "easy victories" for whenever they need to make themselves look good with an arrest since it's just as simple as telling ISP XYZ to "hand over your child pron newsgroup logfiles please," or whatever.

It used to boggle my mind that ISPs would let their news servers download/cache the known warez/mp3/porn groups, but it wasn't until I learned that the half-a-dozen "pay for usenet" services have those same groups that my jaw truely dropped. And these pay-for services are nothing to sneeze at either, they have 30+days worth of archives on the most heavily trafficed groups with 99% completion. INSANE.

Someone please explain to me how all of this is possible. The fact that the party is still going on after all these years makes it seem like a dream. I for one hope we never wake up :)

Re:Uphill Battle (rebuttal)

[hesiod]

> I work hard on programs and I'm paid for them and that's it.

Just curious, would it annoy you if you later found out that the software you wrote was being pirated all over the Internet and, in theory, depriving your employer of sales? It wouldn't affect you directly unless sales slipped so much you get fired.

OT: Local landmark

[Just Some Guy]

Of all the places you could've chosen, why Merimac Caverns? Are you from the area?

That's not what he said.

[Darth23]

You're jumping to conclusions.

His point was that the RIAA was attempting to lecture colleges about evils of stealing music when the RIAA members have a long and rich history of doing the same thing.

No where does the professor state that it's ok for college students to rip-off musicians.

:P

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck the RIAA and fuck the artists too! they can eat my ass and get a real job good artists could still be rich by giving away their music for free, and make money from touring. whats that you say? some artists cant tour? whys that? is it because they cant perform their own songs? because they are talentless fucks with a technicaly gifted producer and marketing team? aww, thats so tragic....

look at the GAME industry

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want a more genuine position on piracy, take a look at the PC game industry:

http://crystaltips.typepad.com/wonderland/2005/03/ burn_the_house_.html

Q: I am one of the bad guys: I'm working on a big budget next generation console game. I want to ask about totally legalised piracy? Not Russia and grey market - I'm talking Blockbuster. 20 dollars a year you can borrow whatever you like then give it back. People are going to rent my game for 4 dollars. I won't see any of that. They're robbing me!

Chris: I'm pro-piracy. I want people to play the games I make. I do it because it's art. I think DRM is a total fucking stupid mess. If the game industry collapses and can be reborn, I'm all for it. Pirate on!

Greg: they're not pirating the game! Someone bought a legal copy! The world is not designed in such a way that money inherently funnels its way into your wallet!?

Warren: I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of shit. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway!

THOSE ARE THREE GAME-DEVELOPERS. they make their living making games. and they are notoriously underpaid and vastly OVER-worked (80-hour workweeks during long, long, long extended crunch times)

what they say is pretty moving and shocking, considering the flapdoodle from the RIAA that we've become accustomed to.

the RIAA has turned file-sharing into a "moral" episode about violating copyright law. as it's been said already, they're just turning their lost profits into a moral crusade against p2p. their copyrights/industry aren't actually being abused or exploited or appropriated (except by capital P-pirates, who pirate music/software and then sell it for huge profits). they're just being looked over; they're a has-been. people have better things to do than pay 18 bucks for a shitty cd with one good tune on it. there's tons of LEGAL free music all over the place.

oh well for the RIAA :(

you're playing Nice Guy ("they're bullies, but what they're asking isn't unreasonable...") but you're still an idiot.

violaters of Jim Crow were breaking the law too. just because the dixiecrats had the law on their side, does that make their demands unreasonable?

the RIAA is a stinking pile of filth. and it's important to note that many students SHARE MP3's LEGALLY, both download/upload not only mp3's that both sharers already own.

LEGITIMATE FILE-SHARING already HAS been trodden on in many cases. there's no "would be [trodden upon]"-- it's already happened and is still happening.

Is anyone offended by this comparison?

[uqbar]

We are talking about people taking music illegally - not slavery or civil rights.

Sure free music is a right - protected by the first amendment even. But this is not the kind of right you are suggesting.

If you want free music, stop whining about your "right" to take what others have worked hard long hours to produce. Learn to play an instrument and write your own damn songs rather than taking other peoples work.

Sure the RIAA sucks - but so do people that steal music without regard for the right of the musicians to earn an honest living. Most musicians barely scrape by - they need to eat too.

Re:Is anyone offended by this comparison?

[Anonymous Coward]

Offended? No, that would require that I be monumentally stupid.

Amused, maybe. The sheer amounts of money being thrown around make me innately distrust the people doing the throwing.

And finally, what makes you think artists are allowed to 'make a living' by the RIAA and their cohorts?

Even the top-liner acts don't make nearly as much as you think they do.

I'll gladly pay an artist $1 for a copy of a performance. That's 99 cents more than they get from the RIAA.

Re:Is anyone offended by this comparison?

[compu73rg33k]

Most musicians barely scrape by - they need to eat too. Yeah but the ones who are "barely scraping by" aren't the ones whose songs get pirated everyday. If they were they wouldn't be "scraping by" because they'd be busy touring making millions of dollars. The ones that DO get pirated are the popular songs made by millionaire musicians.

Re:Is anyone offended by this comparison?

[Travelsonic]

but so do people that steal music without regard for the right of the musicians to earn an honest living.

What "right" to make a living? Who said that they have the right to make money off of something? There is a right to try, but no inherit right to profits per-ce. Copyright infringement is not be right in most (there are exceptions in some cases), but thinking that you are entitled to something just because you made something is wrong. What if it sucks, should they not get a refund if they wanted it?

Re:Is anyone offended by this comparison?

[MrResistor]

Actually, I'm offended by your taking offense. His point is entirely valid, regardless of your feelings about any comparisons you imagine were made.

If you want a less inflamatory example, though, how about seatbelt laws? In California it's illegal to not where a seatbelt while riding in a car, but can you honestly argue that it's wrong? ("stupid" is not the same as "wrong" either, btw)

As for a discussion of rights, well, I have a natural right to use any idea I come in contact with in any way I see fit. The musician's (or other creator's) "right" to profit from that idea is a completely artificial construct, so I'm afraid you're ultimately on the losing side of that argument.

Now, having said that, I feel I should point out that I choose not to engage in copyright infringement, as I believe paying for things I like is the best way for me to get more of the sort of things I like. However, as a musician myself, I'm very much aware that the person I'm really paying is the middleman, and the reason I'm paying him is that he was kind enough to do the hard work for me (listening to thousands of bands that suck, and recording and distributing the few that don't, and finding a way to let me know about it).

Musicians don't make money from album sales, so any discussion of why copyright infringement is wrong based on a musician's right to eat is fundamentally flawed.

Your UID indicates that you've been around long enough to have read Courtney Love's unusually coherent speech on the subject from a few years ago. If you haven't, you really should.

And finally, artists don't stop creating just because they aren't making any money at it. You can be sure that anyone who tries to tell you so is a middlemen, trying to protect his profit stream, not an artist.

Logical Truth

[argoff]

Sorry, but in effect you stole the results of my efforts, my time, and my money without offering me due compensation.

Hypocite, you're stealing by getting free services from me! and hiding behind the government as an excuse. If you believe that you have a right to controll information that you created, then you are free to try and do so ... non disclosure agreements ... digital encryption ... but seriously that's not tenable because of the real world ... so instead now you want society to bear those costs and controll everybody for you by imposing copyrights.

The only "VALUE" your loosing is the "VALUE" to "CONTROLL" people once the cat's out of the bag. Maybe your loosing "VALUE" when I free your slaves from the plantation too - Maybe I'm "stealing" them from you, because I won't let you controll them anymore. Maybe the train companies loose "value" because airplanes were invented. Once again, you might FEEL someone took value from you, but since you have no right to controll people that way to begin with, it is your problem and not mine, and it is certainly NOT THEFT !!!!!

The only theft going on here is you're stealing my time and resources and the rest of societies to feed and support your controll freak attitude. AND I WONN'T STEAL THEIR MUSIC, SOFTWARE, BOOKS, or GAMES, I'll copy them, cause it's NOT THEFT!!!!, no matter how many rationalisations you use to justify your controll freak attitude.

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

Hypocite, you're stealing by getting free services from me! and hiding behind the government as an excuse.

Perhaps you can explain, using small words so you can understand them, how your stealing... (excuse me) copying a program it took me a year to write is doing ME a service. Because by your logic NO ONE would ever pay me for the value I created.

Why would I waste my time providing you with free entertainment or software when I still have to put food on the table?

As far as that goes, why do you think YOU deserve something for nothing? What makes you so special that you think you can live simply as a parasite on other people's work?

Why are you entitled to the benefits of MY work, and I, apparently, am not.

Answer the question.

Seriously. Perhaps you can explain so I can convince my landlord he needs to give my my housing for free.

By your "logic" professional developers, musicians, film makers, writers, authors, and so on, those good enough to do it for a living, don't deserve to make a living simply because technology has advanced to the point where you can steal their work from your parent's basement.

Sorry, but I'm not going for it.

Thief. Coward. Parasite. Learn to deal with it.

Re:Logical Truth

[argoff]

Perhaps you can explain, using small words so you can understand them, how your stealing... (excuse me) copying a program it took me a year to write is doing ME a service.

If you're creative enough to write a usefull program that everybody wants, then I'm sure you can also figure out how to reward yourself without microregulating what every person on the planet coppies. Seems like allot of other people have, so if you can't cope without a personal monopoly then tough shit, but it's still NOT theft!

That's what the information age is about, learn to deal with it or be A LOOSER!

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

No answer as to why you deserve special treatment. As I figured.

BTW, based on previous messages, I'm sure that if you use uppercase, bold, and enough exclamation points you're sure to convince the judge it's not theft...

Re:Logical Truth

[argoff]

I don't half to have "special treatment" or to "convince a judge" - that's half the problem, you're thinking about what the rules *were* and I'm thinking about the way things *are*. You're thinking of ethics in terms of what you want granted to you or what you feel, I'm thinking of ethics in terms of what rights individuals inherently have like freedom of speech, the right to copy things ... even if everybody hates it and it doesn't make a goddam bit of money for them. Maybe society and the law think gravity pulls upward too, I don't care ... I don't half to care, they are wrong and you'd be a dumbass if you bet your life on it.

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

You're thinking of ethics in terms of what you want granted to you...

Right back at you, as you're thinking that you're entitled to something... when you're not.

the right to copy things

That is not an "inherent right" and that is not a right granted by the constitution and that is not a right granted by law. Three strikes.

It's nothing more than your rationalization as to why you're not really stealing and why you're not really a parasite living off the results of other people's hard work.

Re:Logical Truth

[argoff]

Right back at you, as you're thinking that you're entitled to something... when you're not.

Yeah I do think I'm entitled to something, I think I'm entitled to free speech too, perhaps you feel violated when people exercise that right too, but that is your problem too, not mine.

That is not an "inherent right" and that is not a right granted by the constitution and that is not a right granted by law. Three strikes.

Back at you harder, rights are not granted by the constitution, or law, only acknowledged by them form time to time. Rights exist by the nature of existence - eg. property rights exist because of the nature that not everybody can posess something at the same time. Not so with information. Bzzt. Game over.

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

I think I'm entitled to free speech too...

Not even a good straw man. And you "think" you're entitled to free speech? Might want to check up on that.

property rights exist because

Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation, and patent rights are stated and granted in the constitution. The founding fathers recognized that such creation takes effort, time, and money, and that those who are capable of such deserve fair and equitable compensation.

And stealing their work product is definitely not fair in my book. Nor in the eyes of the law.

Since you're so fond of examples, check out the U.S.S.R. The economic end result is a great example of what happens when workers have no investment in the system and no incentive to create.

And it's NOT a game, and it's NOT over.

Re:Logical Truth

[argoff]

Intellectual property rights exist to encourage investment and innovation, and patent rights are stated and granted in the constitution.....

You should really read up on constitutional law, there is a reason why the bill of rights is worded "the congress shall pass no law ... " instead of saying "the government grants people the right ... "

And patent? you didn't mention copyright? But you still proved my point, what the hell kind of right says "for a limited time" or has an expiration date and it's certinly not a "property" right.

encourage investment and innovation ... is definitely not fair in my book

Thank you, those are feelings, not rights, even if some are backed up by poorly thought out laws that just people should defy.

Since you're so fond of examples, check out the U.S.S.R. The economic end result is a great example of what happens when workers have no investment in the system and no incentive to create.

Yeah, the USSR is a great example of what happens when you tell people that they have bullshit "rights" to controll other people for the sake of "security", "fairness" or should I say "incentive" now.

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

...poorly thought out laws that just people should defy

"Just" people??? You are a piece of work, aren't you. A noble champion and defender of the right to steal and copy that which you're incapable of creating yourself.

Funny how that works.

Re:Logical Truth

[argoff]

Just" people??? You are a piece of work, aren't you. A noble champion and defender of the right to steal and copy that which you're incapable of creating yourself.

Yeah funny how that works, 99% of every piece of knowledge we use to create was given to us to use freely without royality. Only a hyporcite would want to add to that, fecne it off, and now say everyone owes him.

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

Only a hyporcite would want to add to that...

If I ADD to that knowledge, to use your own words, I'm adding value. And if I and others spend a year of our time and our dollars writing and working on it then we're adding a lot of value.

And if you steal it, you're admitting it has value.

So, again, since you never answered the prior question: Why are you so special? Why should YOU get that additional work for free?

Why are you automatically entitled to benefit from that work, and its creators are not?

Put up or shut up.

Re:Logical Truth

[argoff]

If you ADD to that public knowledge, then you admit that it has value, and you admit that you got that value freely. Why are you so special, why do you deserve the distribution monopoly. Answer, you don't.

You said "Put up, or shut up", my thoughts exactly.

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

you admit that you got that value freely

I said no such thing. I PAID for my education. I PAID for my training. I PAID for the books and magazines and periodicals I read to keep up.

I paid to gain that knowledge, and there was little FREE about it.

And I PAID, in dollars, effort, and time, when I added that additional value to that which I had learned.

why do you deserve the distribution monopoly

Since you're free to buy books, software, music, and movies other than mine, it's not a monopoly.

And since you're free to download books, software, music, and movies other than mine from those who choose to make them available for free, it's not a monopoly.

Not even a good try.

Again, why are you entitled to steal the results and harvest the value of other people's work?

Answer.

Re:Logical Truth

[argoff]

I said no such thing. I PAID for my education. I PAID for my training. I PAID for the books and magazines and periodicals I read to keep up.

HOLY SHIT!!! You paid for information AS A SERVICE! Get with it hypocrite!

Again, why are you entitled to steal the results and harvest the value of other people's work?

Why are entitled to charge for the same service twice? thrice? 100 times? With any other service or property that'd be fraud. Answer: because copy distribution monopolies are a fraud.

Answer

The answer is that you are not entitled to a distribution monopoly ... figure out ANOTHER model for making MONEY! ... that is *YOUR* problem, not mine! If you don't want me having a piece of information you created for free, then please, don't make it to begin with. You'll get left behind, and we'll do fine without you! And I'll get use of free information, and you'll obsess in jealousy that I get lots of free coppies while you get nowhere in life.

BTW, you sound like a fool to me because I probably illegally copy stuff less than 99.9% of the people out there. I'm an RCHE (which cost allot of my own money BTW), and most the styles of music I like are distributed by authors freely on the internet.

It's people like me that hate copyrights the most, because we can see more clearly than anyone that the free market "property" analogy is a lie, it has nothing to do with property and everything to do with controll.

Re:Logical Truth

[shmlco]

you sound like a fool to me

And you sound like a parasite to me. Happy?

Sounds like a good start to a website

[AussieVamp2]

RIAAstoleMyMoney.com Get a bunch of stories put up there like this, see what happens.

It's human (corporate) nature

[It doesn't come easy]

Exactly the same because human nature is still the same. The RIAA and MPAA are the establishment. They have the power right now. They would rather things stay the same. Very similar to the situation way back when IBM dominated the computer hardware industry (and there was no such thing as the software industry).

Distribution by network access is the upstart. A change in paradigm that content providers would prefer to ignore if they can. However, it is inevitable that things change. The real question is -- who dictates how and when. Even though the addition of the cassette (and video) tape did not hurt, and in fact significantly helped, content providers, they seem to have a blind eye towards the potential advantages that distribution by network can bring. On the surface, then, it sees that they are not the ones in control of the change.

If they are smart (here's hoping), they are working behind the scenes to shift paradigms while trying to maintain in the foreground. If they are stupid, the DRM thing is their answer to the shift in paradigm. DRM is doomed to failure as long as there are free coders out there. In the meantime, the threat of lawsuit is driving everyone to learn how to stay anonymous on the net. Interesting, no? The RIAA and MPAA efforts indvertently expanding free speech...

Gotta love it ;)

you are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

you're dense.

end of story.

you might assume that because i just called you dense i am somebody who thinks a law is wrong if the law means i can't stuff for free.

but actually, you're dense. the entire discussion is lost on you.

you are the obligatory idiot who posts with a straw-man cliche. THERE'S MILLIONS OF YOU!

Re:Who's stealing from the artists? Here's another

[Anonymous Coward]

That's when you show up at their home address with three big friends and politely ask again. Sometimes it's what it takes, some people only understand the threat of force (be it a lawsuit or a broken rib)

My coworker's kids do this....Peer Pressure.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is this the way society should work? That the majority gets punished for the acts of a few?"

Apparently your society doesn't have that old saying "A few bad apples spoiling the barrel". Consider it an incentive to apply some peer pressure on those who are anti-social.

"stolen money" argument

[Travelsonic]

It is stealing. Consider the situation. If there is a CD you like and it isn't online, you go buy it. The seller makes X dollars. Your friend likes the CD too, but instead of buying it, he burns a copy of yours. You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.

I love this arguemnt, only because it is so illogical.

In order to steal money from somebody, electronically or not, then that person must have it first. In your example, no money was taken away. Instead, no money was given. Is that theft? NO! Why? because theft requires loss, and not "oh I wanted to make X ammount of dollars but I wouldn't so anything blocking my goal is theft". It's copyright infringement. Not theft, murder, DUI, DWAI, or rape.

Re:"stolen money" argument

[dwarfking]

So, by all the above comments the consensus is that when one person's illegal activities deprive another person of their lively hood, just because the injured party never had the money in the first place, no crime has been committed? You haven't stolen their right to a lively hood?

That said then, and with regards to previous posts, it should be perfectly legal for me to then come to your house, hook up an electrical cord and use the electricity you pay for at no charge to me. Since I intercept it before you have it, well you never had it any way (even though your meter records it).

Or better yet, your wife is a really good cook and creates a cookie recipe that allows her to make and sell cookies that people really want to buy. I can make a copy of her recipe and give it away to anyone who wants it. Because she still has the original I've not stolen her recipe, even though I have stolen her business. Nope, no crime here.

Or how about if I just zombie your computer and use it for my own needs, depriving you the ability to use it to do your job (I know, you are all uber-geeks and that could never happen...it's an analogy) so you don't get paid. You never had the money, I never took anything other than electronic resources (in this case I didn't even violate a copyright), but I prevent you from making a living. Guess I didn't commit a crime. I guess DoS attacks really aren't criminal either.

For the argument that "there is no entitlement to the money", fine. But then why do you feel entitled to the music? Why do you get something for nothing that normally you should have to pay for and think that's ok, but if someone feels you've taken money from their pockets, well, this whole entitlement mentality is bogus?

As another poster mentioned, theft is not necessarily the act of taking, but of having something to which you don't have the right. Using the example s/he provided, if you break into a company, copy their plans, use or give the plans away such that the company doesn't make money they otherwise would have, there is precendent in law that that is considered theft and a value is placed on the lost revenue to determine if is grand theft or petty theft.

But not by your definitions.

So, I guess I'll make arrangements to make use of the electricity you pay for to run the computers you own, that have your wife's famous cookie recipe that I will SPAM email to millions using your mail server and you'll be happy to let me do so since nothing physical was ever lost, and that is your definition of theft.

Re:"stolen money" argument

[Travelsonic]

...just because the injured party never had the money in the first place, no crime has been committed?

Oh, so now making an opposing argument using logic == saying crime X is ok? Get some glasses will you, we are only saying that the argument is illogical, not that any crime that has occured because of it.

You haven't stolen their right to a lively hood?

No I have not, I only (that is IF i admitted to comiting copyright infringement, which you assume I did by making the point I did.) made it harder. He/she can still do it, but that person must overcome the obsticals created by the potentially widespread copyright infringment of that work. Oh, and putting words in italics to make a point doesn't make it any more correct.

That said then, and with regards to previous posts, it should be perfectly legal for me to then come to your house, hook up an electrical cord and use the electricity you pay for at no charge to me.

You in that case are using something that I can't, copying a file doesn't deprive you of use unlike electricity, which is created, but can not be kept forever/copied in infinity

Because she still has the original I've not stolen her recipe, even though I have stolen her business. Nope, no crime here.

"stolen their business"? This makes absolutely no sense, so I can not respond to this except to say that copying and selling a recipie might not be legal, but last time competition was NOT illegal, no matter what euphimism you use. And yes, "stole their business" is just a euphimism.

theft is not necessarily the act of taking, but of having something to which you don't have the right.

I was taught that http://slashdot.org/~Travelsonic/journal/ theft requires loss, and as far as I know, that in terms of copyright infringement that in order for theft, it does require loss.

For the argument that "there is no entitlement to the money", fine. But then why do you feel entitled to the music?

Nowhere did I say it, and I personally have noticed the musicians bitching about entitlement more than "pirates" and music, IMO.

Re:"stolen money" argument

[dwarfking]

Oh, so now making an opposing argument using logic == saying crime X is ok? Get some glasses will you, we are only saying that the argument is illogical, not that any crime that has occured because of it.

I have to say I am completely baffled by this statement. Are you saying a crime is being committed or not? Is getting music that you did not pay for a crime or not?

"stolen their business"? This makes absolutely no sense, so I can not respond to this except to say that copying and selling a recipie might not be legal, but last time competition was NOT illegal, no matter what euphimism you use. And yes, "stole their business" is just a euphimism.

How does it not make sense? Copying and selling a stolen recipe is not competition. Competition is coming up with something better, legally. If it's OK to take business away from a competitor through illegal means, then that means monopolies should be allowed. And yes, "stole their business" can be a euphimism when all activities are legal. But if it happens as a result of an illegal activity, it ceases to be a euphimism and becomes something with monetary value that can be recovered through the courts.

I was taught that http://slashdot.org/~Travelsonic/journal/ theft requires loss, and as far as I know, that in terms of copyright infringement that in order for theft, it does require loss.

Discounting for a moment whether you agree or disagree with the notion of copyrights, what are they for? What is the purpose of a copyright? Does it not provide a means by which the copyright holder can profit from the work if they so desire, or give it away if they desire? Why is copyright infringement recognized as a crime? I say it is because it does result in a loss - a loss to the copyright holder to decide how and by what means the copyrighted material will be used. And if that meant sale for profit then it is a loss of value the copyright holder had the right to expect by virtue of holding the copyright.

Oh, and putting words in italics to make a point doesn't make it any more correct.

And just a note, the use of italics was for emphisis of the point. I've never heard where italics was intended to make something more or less correct, merely to call attention to a particular section.

Re:"stolen money" argument

[Anonymous Coward]

He/she can still do it, but that person must overcome the obsticals created by the potentially widespread copyright infringment of that work.

that copying and selling a recipie might not be legal, but last time competition was NOT illegal, no matter what euphimism you use.

---

Copyright infringment does not count as competition in a business and is not a valid arguement for "we just made their business harder". Sure you made it harder, but you did so illegally.

Re:"stolen money" argument

[Travelsonic]

Is getting music that you did not pay for a crime or not?

That depends, are sites like emusic and dmusic.com illegal in your philosophy? Or how about a CD your friend had and wanted to give away to somebody because he got tired of it? The crime is not that the music was not paid for per-se, but in what you are asking is a crime or not, I assume you mean downloading music without permission, which is a crime, whereas the sites offer downloading "without payig for it" but is legal because the artist(s) put it up there for download in this case.

Re:"stolen money" argument

[Travelsonic]

"we just made their business harder". Sure you made it harder, but you did so illegally.

Just a side note: I never said I did or didn't pirate music/movies. But yeah, this is true.

Re:"stolen money" argument

[dwarfking]

I believe we actually agree more than we disagree. I don't consider it illegal to sell a CD you no longer listen to, nor to give it away. So long as you do not maintain a copy and continue to use it, the act of transfering the media to me is not a problem. It's a fine line, I know, but one that is legally accepted.

As for the music sites you mention, if the artists are the copyright holders and give permission for this activity, by all means that is there right.

I think our only difference is that I consider it theft when an illegal activity results in a monetary loss, whether that loss be caused by actually taking something (money, things) or by creating a situation where money could have been made had the illegal activity not occured.

Yeah, right

[StratoChief66]

DJs just play what the station tells them to play

dammit

[bechthros]

sometimes I hate ASCII. BTW, you forgot your /sarcasm tags.

Re:dammit

[hesiod]

Sorry, I'm not into metatagging my conversations. ASCII does have a tendency to lose any subtleties of language. Oh well, no harm done. :)

Re:Uphill Battle (rebuttal)

[Maxo-Texas]

Your point is valid.

That is what is strange. While I agree with you and in the past was a pretty straight arrow- I feel the elite of society have broken the social contract and rewritten the rules to an extreme that is no longer fair. Since it isn't fair, I don't feel bound to upload the rules that they bought and paid for any more.

However, since I took that attitude, I get a lot less upset when it happens to me. I am less capable of moral outrage when I get screwed but I'm also upset a lot less when it happens than I used to be. I used to always play by the rules and then get upset when others didn't.
I used to be fair and even handed and then get upset when others were obviously self-centered to the extent that I thought they were delusional (I mean remembering reality different than it really occured when it suits is rediculously common). It's like the republicans and democrats who are firmly for a position until they are firmly against it and were never for it.

However, where possible I try to just withdraw from that society. I listen to freely available alternative music much more and occasionally donate to support it. I listen to canned pay music a lot less. I use free software instead of paid software and occasionally donate to support it. I purchase almost no canned software now even if it involves extra money.
If I see software that suits my needs that is pay software I typically buy it. As far as shows go- if they are cheap, I buy them- if I think they are too expensive then I do not. The break point seems to be about $35 per season- and some part of me realises that at that level we are only talking about $5 worth of physical materials so why do they deserve to be rich for their work?
There is a coming "glut" of entertainment AND software- it's going to demolish these prices. If 2 billion people are going to buy your sofware is it really fair that they pay you $10 a month for it? How much is fair compensation for a person's time? The current grossly inflated prices for actors and developers are not sustainable but reflect conditions that were only going to exist for an instant of history.