RIAA Hands out more Lawsuits

Syrae writes "The RIAA has unleashed yet another round of copyright infringement lawsuits against 754 people. Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

Comments

Why?

[FireFlie]

I understand where this is news for nerds, but come on, tell me that the last sentence in this submission isn't just a little loaded. They buy more music. Good. That gives them the right to steal whatever they want then, right? Yes, I know that this is slashdot and I am going to get hammered on this one, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you cant do whatever the hell you want. I like gin. I don't like paying for gin. When I go out to get gin, I don't steal it, despite my desire to have both my cash and my gin.

There are a wealth of music programs out there (which these people are apparently using). Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right? Sure it's often a small clip of it (itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable), but that is one of the biggest defense of sharers: that they somehow need to preview before they buy. Well they can, and people are still trading music illegally. Ghasp!

You hate the system, fine. I'm not exactly fond of the way things like this are going right now either. If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.

Now, as usual, let the "fuck the **aa posts commence."

Re:Why?

[QuantumG]

IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.
IT'S NOT THEFT.

How many fuckin' times do we have to tell you?

STOP CALLING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT THEFT!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I go out to get gin, I don't steal it, despite my desire to have both my cash and my gin.

Stop bitching. Stealing and copyright infringement have nothing to do with each other. The first part of your post made a good point, because the submitters last sentence is indeed loaded.
 
Ranting and karma-whoring won't get you anywhere.

Re:Why?

[Propagandhi]

Submitter's point was that the sharing of music leads to more sales and thus more money for the RIAA. No, his statement is by no means truth of this assertion, but this is what he was try to suggest...

itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable

30 seconds of previewage isn't at all adequate for prog or trance, but.. whatever... just had to mention that.

Re:Why?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Yes, I know that this is slashdot and I am going to get hammered on this one...

Since the mods aren't descriptive enough, I'll explain that the reason you're about the be modded overrated is not that you've expressed an unpopular opinion, it's just that there's no "giant logic flaw" mod.

A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong. There are good reasons that it's not good to download the stuff, but comparing it to swiping materials is just going to make you look dumb to the majority of Slashdot.

Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right? Sure it's often a small clip of it (itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable)

That must be some awfully repetitive music you listen to if 30 seconds is enough.

Re:Why?

[Night Goat]

That is a very good point. Another thing I noticed after reading the summary of the study that was linked to in the post was that it was misleading, or at the very least, incomplete. The study said "that those who regularly download or share unlicensed music also spend an average of £5.52 a month on legal downloads through sites such as Apple's iTunes Music Store or Napster. Those who were not illegally filesharing spent just £1.27 a month on digital tracks." I don't think they consider CDs to be digital tracks here.

They don't seem to have included CDs at all in their study! How do we know that those who weren't illegally filesharing weren't spending £8 per month on CDs? Maybe these folks were in fact LARGER consumers than the file sharers.

And consider the guy that's behind a modem. He's not really able to do much downloading of mp3s as it is, so that cuts down on both his filesharing and his legal purchases. I just don't think that this survey is particularly useful. Its method is flawed.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

Start voting with your dollars

Pray tell me how we're supposed to do that when the very first people who get their grubby paws on our dollars, via taxes, are the people who are writing blatantly plutocratic laws. If we were ruled by dictators who held mock elections every four years, how would you recommend fighting them? By participating in the polls? By voting with our dollars?

Will you please think about the reality of the situation for once? Spare me the holier-than-thou "it's the law" junk. The reality is this: if the media companies were so darn concerned with their intellectual property then they should control the distribution on the front end by whatever means they feel they can implement profitably. This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.

I will emphasize again, for the millionth time: Face reality. Once the media company sells something to me then it is mine and I will do with it whatever I darn well please. If they don't like it they're free to not sell it to me in the first place. Once they've sold this music to the masses, however, I no longer feel any pity for them. No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.

Re:Why?

[John Seminal]

one of the biggest defense of sharers: that they somehow need to preview before they buy.

My biggest reason for sharing is that it is sharing. It is not stealing. It is not taking something that will deprive another person of ownership. When I share a CD with a friend, you are not loosing anything. The artists are not loosing anything. The only one with a paranoia of loosing money is the Corporate executives. And the only thing the suits are loosing is sleep, hair, and customers who they disfranchise.

In the USA we have the right of free speech. Often, some of the most insightful ideas come from music. What was the history of the 1960's? What happened. What was the mood of the people. You can find out in the music. Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival told you more about the Vietnam war than Nixon did in any speech.

This is the USA, not China. What will the USA do? Tax ideas? If you want to share this piece of music then you must pay $15 for the CD or $30 a month to download something you won't own, a file that will play today but not tomorrow?

If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.

No matter what grass roots campaign you start, or how good of a candidate you find, we the people can NEVER win. The establishment uses money to buy votes. Why does a Senate seat cost 5+ million dollars?? How can Joe Sixpack, everyman, ever get elected to high office? Instead you get Senators that have debts to pay to those who contributed money. And guess where the money comes from? Corporations. So when the head of the RIAA or Sony calls Senator Hatch, guess what Senator Hatch does? He listens and votes. Guess what happens when Joe Sixpack calls Senator Hatch. Not a damn thing.

Re:Why?

[Dlugar]

Very good point, but just FYI, you'll be a lot more credible if you simply point out that "trading music illegally" is, in fact, illegal in the United States. But just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's anything like stealing gin. It's definitely not considered theft under US law. In fact, it's considered a civil (rather than criminal) offense for sufficiently small quantities (whereas if you pilfer even a single bottle of gin, it's likely a criminal offense in whatever country you may hail from).

Just a friendly note to help your real point be heard (namely, that "trading music illegally" is still illegal even if it actually makes the RIAA money). Such a point is a lot harder for the Slashbots to shout down.

Dlugar

Re:Why?

[Aqua OS X]

As for that last sentence, I would agree that stealing music is wrong. Nevertheless, I think a lot of this boils down to something Steve Jobs was preaching when the ITMS store launched.

Essentially, Steve has been arguing that downloaders are usually not people who steal for the stake of stealing, they steal because they're music junkies who REALLY like the convenience of downloading music.

This means that if you cater to these people, and you give them convenient / reasonable ways to buy music legally, many of them will gladly do it.

Re:Why?

[zakezuke]

They buy more music. Good. That gives them the right to steal whatever they want then, right?

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. Does it give the right to infringe on copyrights? Not at all. But are the losing money on the the people they are sueing? Not likely.

Think back to the 1980s when VCRs were new. Some pay channels encouraged taping of movies and others took it upon them selfs to dedicate a timeslot for people to set their timmers to record a movie. To the subscriber they got a very cheap means of getting a movie collection. To the provider they got advertising. Cable subscriptions went up, copyright holders made more money, everyone was happy.

look at the Romanian pop song that was lipsynced by some joe in new jersey... spread across the net. This was a form of copyright infringement too. However I doubt that O-zone objected to the free advertising that that resulted.

Think to your self how many times someone gave you a mix tape with clearly printed artists and song titles. How often did one of those result in a sale. This is also a form of copyright infringement. But is it wrong? If the artist wishes this, then it's not, but if they don't then it is. There is no real way to know if it's right or wrong.

But if the RIAA wants to go out of their way to kill an uncontrolled distribution medium... let them. If they don't want free advertising... by all means end it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

tell me that the last sentence in this submission isn't just a little loaded.

The apparent IQ of Slashdot goes up quite a lot if you simply remove the last sentence from every posting. I'm considering writing a browser filter to automate the process.

That said, your response is loaded too. You refer repeatedly to "stealing". Copyright infringement is not stealing. It lacks the element of depriving the previous holder of the thing in question, which is the very essence of "theft". It's because copyright infringement is not theft, that copyright infringement is prosecuted under totally different laws from the laws that apply to theft, and carries different (in fact, generally much more severe) penalties than the penalties that apply to theft. As a very simple litmus test, remember the "Return your MP3s" joke that made the rounds a while back? If copyright infringement were theft, then returning the "stolen goods" really would make sense and it wouldn't be a joke.

Moral: let one who is without sin cast the first accusation of loaded language.

Re:Why?

[Internet_Communist]

I find that every time there's an article like this on slashdot, there is always a post like this, just along side that "fuck the **aa" post.

I'm going to just throw around a few scenarios which I hope will make you ponder your black and white view of copyright.

1. You like a song but not the record label it's on, as it's an RIAA one.
2. You like a song and it's label but you don't have money
3. You disagree with the copyright system in it's current form and are willing to take your chances.

Now here's a few possible reactions to those:

1. You boycott the label/copyright system by not listening.
2. You go the abstinence route and wait until you have money to buy it despite any disagreements with the system.
3. You download the song and buy it when you have money.
4. You download the song and have no plan to buy it, **AA be damned.

What we're forgetting in all this mess is that this is simple data which can be recorded and distributed with the click of a button. That wasn't the case 20 years ago, but it is now. Now we have to go around with thumbs up our asses debating what is "fair" to charge for a distribution of it, well, a "legal" distribution that is.

This distribution method is failing obviously. iTMS and all that other crap is just heading in the completely wrong direction yet again, by throwing on DRM. I don't care if it can be cracked, I know that these labels are participating in that kind of behavior and refuse to participate in it.

Your comparison to gin is ridiculous. After I listen to an mp3 it doesn't go through my digestive system and turn into piss and liver disease. An mp3 is more like photographing a picture at an art museum. Hrmm, "no photography" signs be damned! I bet that violation costs a whole lot less though.

So what do I do, not listen? Well lucky for me most of the music I listen to isn't on RIAA labels anyway, but there's an occasional thing or two which is, so this does concern me.

I also don't have the money to buy all the music which I have downloaded. That's not to mention some stuff I have is out of print and used copies are sometimes extremely rare. I have a rip of one album which would cost $10,000 or so to buy a legal copy, just because it's so rare. How do you propose I go about that one? I think the RIAA lawsuit costs less than that. I also doubt you'll find those tracks on one of those "legal" music download services. Infact most of the stuff I listen to is probably not on those services.

I do buy stuff when I have the chance, usually vinyls (most of the things I listen to only come out on vinyl anyway.) It's an occasional thing though, I really don't have the time to deal with outdated distribution methods in this day in age, and I am not going to fuss with DRM which I disagree with more than copyright itself.

As for getting sued by the RIAA, they've sued 14,000 out of millions. I can't say statistically it's a high probability, especially since not all of those millions are even sharing **AA material, thus making them not applicable anyway.

How do you propose we vote with our dollars anyway? That means supporting the current system no matter what right now. It's like the U.S. presidential elections...bush or kerry, hey we're screwed either way...why vote? Or why pay, for that matter.

You know you can sit around all day saying "it's wrong plain and simple so cry me a river" but in the end that just means you've lost any drive to try and make a difference. And I refuse to be brought down to that level by anyone.

Re:Why?

[Jinjuku]

Thats ok, the majority of slashdot looks idiotic at best most of the time.

Re:Why?

[HexRei]

tell me using the word "steal" when what you really mean is "infringe copyright" isn't a little loaded. Seriously, they're breaking the same law that you would be if you copied a few chapters out of your favorite book.
Your bias just swings the other way.

Re:Why?

[HexRei]

or psy, or drumnbass, or jungle, or speed garage, or breaks, or hardcore, or any other electronic genre which includes loooooong intros and loooong outros and 32 beats to a breakdown.

Re:Why?

[jrockway]

> 30 seconds of previewage isn't at all adequate for prog or trance, but.. whatever... just had to mention that.

I wish I could preview the whole song at reduced quality or something. There are a number of songs that I've bought but wish I could "take back". If I could listen all the way through I would probably buy more music.

Re:Why?

[Oligonicella]

"No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day."

My, my. Your opinion that their business model is antiquated makes it ok for you to rip-off folks? Also, how do they prevent you from purchasing the music or whatever in the first place?

Re:Why?

[GuyverDH]

Ghaasp! WoW

People who trade files illegally are the same ones who would record music off the radio (or XM, or whatever)

The piece of information that the RIAA (as well as the MPAA) have failed to understand, is the fact that those who file-share, are the ones who would lend out CDs, albums, cassettes, VCR tapes, DVDs etc.

They aren't *losing* a penny, as they wouldn't have bought the music / movie in the first place. They'd have just done without.

Now, once they've sampled the goods (granted, by what's considered illegal means) - and no, a 30 second snippet is not a preview, you have to see the whole thing, or listen to the whole song to know whether it's good or not - they may decide that a particular band, or director is worth spending money on.

In the end, they make more money than they ever did prior to the file-sharing.

Now to the "fuck the RIAA/MPAA" segment.

Neither the RIAA nor the MPAA help the artists. They only help themselves. A bunch of fucking suits who sit around doing abso-fucking-lutely nothing all day, every day, while they collect xx% of the purchase price of every main-line DVD/Movie sold so that they can cushion the wallet between their sorry fat asses and their over-cushioned seats. All of this just because somewhere along the line, these do-nothings decided that they would "help" the artists out for a nominal fee. Who knows, maybe at first they actually did help some of them out. Now, however, they (the MPAA and RIAA) are the real problem with the entertainment industry.

Once they've taken their xx% cut, then the artists, directors, gaffers, painters, set-makers, etc get their cut.

Once the RIAA/MPAA are wiped off of the face of the earth, along with their ambulance chasing lawyers, the artists might actually have a chance to earn a decent cut of their products, and prices would actually drop.

The MPAA/RIAA kind of reminds me of the line from space-balls.

Jaba-the-gut accidentally ate himself to death.

Re:Why?

[iamplasma]

Submitter's point was that the sharing of music leads to more sales and thus more money for the RIAA. No, his statement is by no means truth of this assertion, but this is what he was try to suggest...

Exactly, the submitter is suggesting, in a totally deceptive way, that P2P increases music sales, by relying on a blatant logical fallacy. Just because music pirates buy more music than non-music pirates doesn't prove a thing, correlation is not causation. The simplest disproof is to simply realise that not everyone listens to music (let's be conservative and say 20% of people don't listen to music). All music pirates listen to music (or close to all), unlike the group of non-music pirates, which include people who don't listen to music, so of course the music pirates will have a higher rate of music listening, and so purchasing.

Perhaps another simple proof is to use an analogy. I'll bet that people who steal alcohol also buy more alcohol than people who don't steal alcohol (since they're probably mostly alcoholics). Does that mean that alcohol theft increases alcohol sales? Of course not. But that doesn't stop the submitter trying to use that kind of deceptive logic to push his opinion. If you're going to propagandise in your submissions, at least make them logical.

Re:Why?

[GuyverDH]

Damn - submit - preview - oh well.

ahem - "pizza-the-hut" - not jaba-the-gut - sorry for the misquote... =D

Re:Why?

[Oligonicella]

"The artists are not loosing anything."

So, you don't understand royalties (or spell checking).

"... we the people can NEVER win."

So, you also don't understand the Vietnam war reference you made.

"Guess what happens when Joe Sixpack calls Senator Hatch. Not a damn thing."

Another indication you don't understand the Vietnam reference.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

No one's being ripped off.

If the music companies feel like they're being ripped off they're free to screen their customers more carefully. If they sell the product to the customers then they have no legitimate control over what the customers do with the product. This is a well known fact. This is not something that can be solved by suing customers after the fact. Face reality.

Go to some venture capitalists and tell them,"I have a great idea for a new product. There's one problem: the product is easily copied by anyone with a computer."

Re:Why?

[Sancho]

If you're "willing to take your chances" you should be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. Don't bitch just because the RIAA uses their legal rights and files suit (although it's ok to bitch about their bullying tactics, which could easily be considered immoral).

I'm kinda curious, though. Why do you think you have the right to this music?

Lastly, to the "voting with your dollars" bit, I agree with you, but for different reasons. If you refrain from buying music (which is a way of voting with your dollars) the RIAA will just use that to claim that piracy is costing them. It's kinda a lose/lose for the consumer in general.

Re:Why?

[markass530]

I am voting with my dollars. When I first started file sharing, and downloading, I still purchased cd's on a regular basis. After the lawsuits, and underhanded antics by varius agencies, I decided to no longer purchase cd's, except for my 2 favorite bands. I realize I take a risk by downloading the content, but it is small, and fuck it I don't have anything the RIAA can take anyways.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

There are good reasons that it's not good to download the stuff, but comparing it to swiping materials is just going to make you look dumb to the majority of Slashdot.

That's ok. The majority of Slashdot seems to think copying a song without permission is no big deal. But when a company copies Linux and releases it without the source, then it's a HUGE deal.

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

(disclaimer: Yes, I know Slashdot has a lot of different folks on it and not all share those same set of views at the same time, but a lot of them seem to.)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I also don't have the money to buy all the music which I have downloaded. I don't have the money to buy a Porsche, so I'll just yank one...

Re:Why?

[Ravatar]

Main difference being that when someone steals alcohol, the physical product is GONE and can no longer be sold. This is not true for downloaded music. Hooray for blatantly incorrect analogies.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Where's the law that says you have to buy their CDs?  Where's the law that says you have to buy tickets to see their movies or rent their DVDs?

Their isn't any.  You don't have to see the movie.  You don't have to listen to the music.  You don't buy (*OR* steal)<--  That's voting with your dollars.  It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't make it right.  Wire fraud is technically possible.  I guess it should just be allowed because because technology has outpaced paper money... Kind of an idiotic point of view, isn't it?

Re:Why?

[BigDogCH]

"Start voting with your dollars"

I can't, i already speant all my dollars on music.

Actually, it is sad that I can't use my votes to help. What polticians can I vote for that would side against the RIAA?

Re:Why?

[LordPhantom]

Who modded this guy insightful? The RIAA, assuredly does SOMETHING. They sue people...they make press, publicity, bribe radio stations, hound indy labels to join them, put stupid adds up on the radio and internet about piracy.... etc. If it's useful or not, and to whom, is up for debate. But implying they don't do anything is simply foolish.

Re:Why?

[Thing 1]

That must be some awfully repetitive music you listen to if 30 seconds is enough.

It is, actually, for half the issue: 30 seconds is enough to know you don't like it.

But to know whether it's worth buying? That really takes a full listen. Which you could do using the radio, if it weren't chock full of crap.

Re:Why?

[Overly Critical Guy]

The submitter says:

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.

The real point is that it doesn't matter, because copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, and a copyright holder has to defend against it. Also consider that people downloading materials, regardless of whether they end up buying them, also:

1.) Tend to have computers with high-speed connections that are on all the time, which means they probably have more disposable income anyway, and...

2.) These people are distributing copyrighted materials to others just by downloading them, since that is how most P2P apps behave--uploading what you're downloading so others can have it too.

I want to echo the double-standard mentioned elsewhere in that some people defend infringing on copyrighted materials via P2P but get upset when the copyright of the GPL is violated. Just something to think about, that's all.

Re:Why?

[Internet_Communist]

was I the one bitching to begin with? I gave multiple scenarios to purposely conceal my actual stand point. I find this way I can look at the situation a bit better.

Why do I think I have the right to this music? What right was there ever to begin with? An artificial limit placed upon thoughts/ideas/data by people and enforced by the government. I think the real question should be, what gives them the right? You made it, ok fine, but I've heard it now too, if you didn't want people to hear it, why'd you even give it out in the first place?

Wait so you made it but I can't have it unless I pay you? I've already heard it though! I just want to hear it again, what gives you the right to say so?

OK fine, so what's a fair price then? Is that really something that even has a value? It's non-physical. It holds no territorial worth, not in the traditional human/animal aspect. So humans have taking the territorial pissing contest to a new level by enforcing it onto things which aren't really there. Great. And what right do they have into forcing me to play this bizarre game? It's a little more complex then simply what I think.

indeed it's lose/lose, and I'm sure it's applicable in many more ways then the ones each of us mentioned.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, in other words, music that changes so little that you may as well not listen to anything past the first 30 seconds anyway?

God damn you suck; this is evident by the music you listen to.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Excellent. Why don't we let all the companies that would like to copy Linux and sell it in devices without providing their source code just do it? They aren't depriving another person of the ownership of Linux. The opensource developers aren't loosing anything.

Think this idea will get a +4 Insightful as well? I don't. Hypocrites Rule!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Losing" is spelled with just one "O". Just thought you'd like to know.

If "loosing" was even a word, it would mean the same thing as "loosening" or "setting free". So if you are sharing the music with everyone, YOU are the one "loosing".

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

Why don't we let all the companies that would like to copy Linux and sell it in devices without providing their source code just do it?

Don't change the topic. The topic is sharing of information. The topic is not providing source code.

The GPL does not discourage sharing. The media industry does. There's a difference.

Re:Why?

[dhakbar]

Not loosing anything?

Like the hounds?

Oh. You, like many other denizens of the spelling-free zone known as Slashdot, seem to have trouble differentiating between "lose" and "loose" as well as "losing" and "loosing." Well, just so you know, these are not the same word.

"The artists are not loosing anything." This would mean that they are not letting loose anything, as that's what "loosing" means. As even one of your limited intellect can see, this is not the same as "losing" something! It's amazing, yes, but alphabetic language allows us the freedom to differentiate between two different ideas by using words that do not contain the same number of "o's" in them! Just check out the power:

god / good
mod / mood
lot / loot
pot / poot

WOW! It's almost like they're not the same word!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the USA, not China. What will the USA do? Tax ideas? If you want to share this piece of music then you must pay $15 for the CD or $30 a month to download something you won't own, a file that will play today but not tomorrow?

I hope they start taxing ideas. Just as soon as my new patent, "Method for the Taxation of Ideas" goes through.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

So when we share their information without giving back to them it's good.

And when they share our information without giving back it's bad.

Is that what your saying? Gotya. Like I said. You are a hypocrite.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

Sharing of information is good.

The GPL does not discourage sharing. The media industry does. There's a difference.

If you want to argue the technicalities of the terms of sharing, first you must get the media industry on a level where it similarly promotes sharing in the same manner as the GPL: with source code. With DRM gaining momentum, it's easy to see that the media industry is moving in exactly the opposite direction. So this argument of attacking the GPL to support the actions of the media industry will never apply.

Calling me a hypocrite doesn't help you.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Who was attacking the GPL? I was attacking you because you are a hypocrite.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

Attacks are just not tolerated. If you would like to have a reasonable discussion, you're welcome to it. If you wish to continue with a pattern of abusive and unfounded name-calling then I can only pray that the GNU monks get around to dealing with you in the proper manner.

Re:Why?

[twiddlingbits]

"correlation is not causation". If I recall my statistics right, if you take a sample and calculate the co-variance and that value is positive (the closer to 1 the better) then there IS a statement that can be made that the movement of one variable (Sales) is the result of the othe variable (pirating). Of course you are using logic which works different. I think the orginal post was talking statistical terms.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a prick.
It's absolutely stealing.
You are not getting the permission of the owner of the song.
The person 'sharing' the song is not the owner, the owner is the person who wrote the damn thing and they are represented by the RIAA.

So, if someone comes around and "shares" your car tonight then you won't be upset ?

Fucking idiot.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

I anxiously await their arrival.

Thinking that someone else will have to give back while using your IP, while not giving back to them while using theirs (when they require it as you do) is hypocrisy. There is nothing unfounded about it.

Re:Why?

[Eric Damron]

Why? Is copyright infrigement somehow less illegal?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

>A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong.

Here we go, again...

Yes, copyright infringement isn't the same thing as physical theft, but, the end result is, for the seller of either, the same: They are deprived of the money that they are entitled to, for the goods they provide, under the terms they provide them as provided for under law.

For physical goods, it's a one to one mapping. For IP, it is not, nor must it be.

And that, of course, is where the "disconnect" arises: Those that want their entertainment for free seem to think that the mere fact that such can be cheaply duplicated now should also imply that it should be cheap for them to buy.

In short, they deem the value provided to be solely equal to the cost to duplicate... and when that cost is nil, or nearly so, they think that they should get it for free, or on whatever terms they deem "fair".

They resent any attempt by anyone, regardless of stripe, to make money, unless the amounts charged fall within their definition of "fair" - despite the fact that such isn't theirs to define in the first place.

However, here's an "out" for those that feel otherwise: You're free to release your own copyrighted creations, under your own terms. You can charge whatever you wish, or nothing at all. The Internet gives you worldwide exposure and cheap distribution... go for it! Prove the money-grubbing corporate fascists wrong by creating something better, and releasing it for free.

Of course, there are some that are doing so... but they are few and far between... and they certainly aren't the ones explaining the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement", for the umpteenth time, here on Slashdot.

Finally, I think that most of us that understand the real issues involved don't have any real problem with equating copyright infringement with stealing, insofar as it deprives someone of money to which they are entitled to.

Oh, and I just can't resist: Are you sure that that "lobotamy" was cosmetic? It seems to have affected your ability to write sentences: "the reason you're about the be modded"... and your spelling as well, as "lobotamy" is generally spelled "lobotomy".

Maybe you should ask for a refund?

Re:Why?

[QuantumG]

By that logic you might as well call it murder.

Re:Why?

[heatdeath]

Well, uh, not only is it biased, but it's wrong. They don't spend more on music. They spend more on "digital music". (singles and albums online) That's pretty obvious, if you ask me. My parents have lots of CDs, but they haven't bought any of them online (nor have they ever used file sharing software)

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

The media industry got everything it asked for: the selling price at the point of sale. After the sale is complete they have no room to whine about what the new owner of the product did with the product.

Additionally, providing source code to the customer has nothing to do with giving back to the community. That is another fallacy in your attack. Indeed, it's a fallacy in most people's understanding of the purpose of the GPL and free software. Providing source code to the consumer is a condition imposed to assure that the product is not relabeled. At best, you could say that people who misrepresent the identity of a shared tune would be at odds with the GPL.

There is no hypocrisy in sharing. But you just keep up with the name-calling and see if it makes you feel better. I'm here all night.

Re:Why?

[Eric Damron]

"Ranting and karma-whoring won't get you anywhere."

Karma-whoring? Do you really think his position is karma-whoring here on slashdot??

And the fact that he used the common man's verbage and called it stealing is playing word games. Both are breaking the law. Maybe you could argue that infringment is breaking cival law whereas stealing is breaking a criminal code. But as wierd as these times are I don't know if that's true anymore, stricktly speaking.

I don't like seeing copyrighted material being shared via P2P but then I also don't like the way the copyright has been extened over and over so that it never runs out.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF do u listen to, hard core Asian punk rock? Hell the **AA doesn't give a damn anyway so go home, pirate it all u want. They're after the Britney Spears, and Backstreet Fags, copyright violators!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

But if someone made an exact replica of my car, and drove off with the copy, I wouldnt mind one bit.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Ohhh, I see. So the GPL writer has the right to impose a condition to ensure the product is not relabeled, but the Media company has no such right. Got it. Once again. Hypocrisy.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Orig. Post:"If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars."

Your Reply:"...No matter what grass roots campaign you start, or how good of a candidate you find, we the people can NEVER win. The establishment uses money to buy votes. Why does a Senate seat cost 5+ million dollars?? How can Joe Sixpack, everyman, ever get elected to high office? Instead you get Senators that have debts to pay to those who contributed money..."

I believe the origional poster ment: The money given by the company came from cd's which nobody forced you to buy, to "vote with your dollars" s/he means only purchase music from places with policys you support...

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the better the customer the more they can get away with.

that is how the world works

the more you spend the more you get away with

next time you are waiting at a restraunt and someone gets served before you cause they are good customers, complain about that.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

The media industry is restricting sharing. If you want to argue the terms of the sharing, first you must put the media industry in a situation where it promotes sharing the same as the GPL.

I know you're sitting in your room, thinking to yourself how smug you are, thinking you're getting someone on the 'net all worked up. It's a psychological deficiency which you have, to derive amusement from this sort of childish name-calling. Your condition is treatable with modern pharmaceuticals.

Re:Why?

[macdaddy357]

Who modded up this flamebait? Other than "start voting with your dollars," that post just an attempt to provoke angry responses.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

It's great how you keep coming back to "the media industry is restricting sharing" without answering the obvious contradiction between your expectations for them to give back to you and how you don't want to give back to them. Just keep dodging like that so you don't have to admit to yourself that you really do have a double standard there. That might be a psychological deficiency. Unfortunately, lack of ethics aren't as easily treatable with pharmaceuticals.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

your expectations for them to give back to you

There's nothing in the GPL about giving back. There is a term for acceptable sharing: accompany with source.

how you don't want to give back to them

Another fallacy. The media industry asks for ~$15 per CD. That is how they want us to give back to them. Everyone who has bought the CD has given the media industry everything it has asked for at the point of sale.

License agreements are a subersive technique to turn a sale into a rental. There is no such elusive technique in the GPL.

You're wrong on both parts of your argument, both in understanding and in the incorrect logic that you use to attempt to connect the two.

I've noticed that you've dropped the name-calling, though. You're already improving and you've been under treatment for less than 20 minutes. Very commendable.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the **aa

Re:Why?

[sanx]

Except that the RIAA are not suing people who 'steal' music. They're suing people that offer music for download - those that have 1000s of tracks in their shared directories.

I have thousands of tracks on my computer too, but the majority of them (around 400 CDs worth) are ripped from my own CDs. Ones that I have spent my money on.

This is precisely why the RIAA are not able to alledge these people have 'stolen' music. They might very well have bought the CDs or legally downloaded the tracks.

Now consider this: most software that you buy (i.e. non Open-Source) comes with a shrink-wrap or click-wrap licence. Before installation, one has to agree to a (usually restrictive) EULA. You are therefore under no misconceptions as to what you can and cannot do with that software (not reading the EULA is entirely your problem). You have, essentially, entered into a contract with the software company. This gives them rights to sue you for breach of contract should you break the T&Cs you agreed to.

If I buy a CD, did I agree to anything? I don't remember ever having been asked to sign a contract or agree to conditions before purchase, or before playing that CD? Sure, there's a copyright notice there somewhere, but that doesn't mean I've agreed to it. And considering contractual obligations have to be entered into freely, the RIAA cannot assume that by purchasing the CD (especially when purchased online where I couldn't read the copyright notice even if I was aware of its existence) I have agreed to anything at all.

So it all comes down to copyright legislation. There is no special terms under which the RIAA can distribute its music (on CD anyway - dunno about download services). Copyright is there to protect the orginates and provides a means to exact redress from those that break that copyright. Does a person who rips tracks to computer hard drive break the copyright? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure that the RIAA have not been able to ever sue someone for format shifting. Now, if the location on the hard drive the music's in happens to be shared, that doesn't affect the music it all. It just allows someone else to grab a copy. It's the person downloading that breaks the copyright, not the person sharing it.

The most the RIAA should be able to alledge is that the sharer was inducing copyright infringement. But that's not an offence, either criminal or civil. If it was, Apple, Creative, iRiver, etc. would be in deep shit.

Anyway ... do long posts equal mod points?

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Sorry, I was still calling you a hypocrite. The phrase 'double standard' implies it in case you didn't understand.

License agreements don't turn the sale into a rental. What part of the license says you have to turn the CD back in after a certain amount of time? No part. I could say that that's showing a lack of understanding and logic, but you and I both know you are basically just making stuff up at this point.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

What part of the license says you have to turn the CD back in after a certain amount of time?

Again you're a victim of incomplete education. There are two kinds of transactions in the world. The first type of transaction involves the transfer of ownership and involves a sale. The second type of transaction does not involve transfer of ownership and is a rental. There is no inherent requirement that a rental has a return date.

Don't blame me for your inadequate understanding.

Re:Why?

[Chandon Seldon]

I'd be perfectly happy to provide full source to any remixes that I make if the record companies would be willing to provide the source to begin with...

Re:Why?

[iamplasma]

Well, it would appear I've been deemed flamebait in my GP post for daring point out a logical error, but I'll continue on anyway.

Main difference being that when someone steals alcohol, the physical product is GONE and can no longer be sold. This is not true for downloaded music. Hooray for blatantly incorrect analogies.
I'm not debating that point at the moment, I'm attacking the claim that music piracy increases record sales because of a correlation between people who pirate music, and the amount of music they buy. The submitter (and many other people) claim that because there is a correlation, there must be causation. However, this isn't the case, and it is a fallacy to claim that it is. It is IMHO far more plausible, and perfectly logical, that both music piracy and purchasing music have a shared, unrelated cause, which is "liking music". People who like music have a higher propensity to pirate music, and a higher propensity to buy music. So when you look at the population of music pirates, it looks like they buy more music (and they do), but it's only because they are more likely to be members of the population of people who like music that they buy more, it's not the piracy itself having any effect on music purchasing.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only hypocritical if the reason they object to Linux distribution without source is because of a deep respect of intellectual property law. If, on the other hand, they object to this distribution because it represents a more fundamental attack on their freedoms, then this view is self-consistent whether you understand it or not, and I hope you die a painful death of cancer and/or AIDS.

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

The real point is that it doesn't matter, because copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, and a copyright holder has to defend against it.

Well, no, they don't have to. I don't blame them for doing so, but they don't have to.

I want to echo the double-standard mentioned elsewhere in that some people defend infringing on copyrighted materials via P2P but get upset when the copyright of the GPL is violated.

There probably are some people who feel this way, and there are some legitimate reasons to feel so (there's a difference between profitting off of someone's work and giving copies away for free). But most people are pretty consistent on this point.

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

The majority of Slashdot seems to think copying a song without permission is no big deal.

I feel this way, but I'm not sure if the majority of Slashdot does or not.

But when a company copies Linux and releases it without the source, then it's a HUGE deal.

Nah, it's not a huge deal, but it's a bigger deal than copying a song without permission, assuming you mean a modified copy. If you mean an unmodified copy, then no, I don't think anyone but RMS is gonna consider that a huge deal.

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. One issue is copying a song without the permission of the author. The other is distributing software without distributing the source code. There really isn't even much of a similarity.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Only two types? Sorry, leasing is a separate type from renting and a transfer of ownership. You might not think so, but it is according to the law. Read a few more legal books before you call anyone else on a lack of education.

I think you will also find in those books that rent is a periodic payment by a person for the use of another's property. There is an inherent requirement for a limitation on the time of use in the agreement for it to be considered a rental instead of a sale.

Re:Why?

[iamplasma]

Yeah, I'm not denying there's a statistical link, just that the inference drawn from that link is incorrect. The original post, at least from what I can see, is certainly claiming that there is a causative link between piracy and music buying, based on the statistical link. All I'm trying to show is that that inference isn't warranted. Causation is causation, whether you're talking statistics or logic, and no causation has been made out here, only a link (which I assert is via a shared cause).

Re:Why?

[Froggy]

I am going to get hammered [...] I like gin.


Well, thanks for sharing, but I don't think your drinking habits are news that will interest many nerds.

There are a wealth of music programs out there (which these people are apparently using). Most of the pay for networks give you the ability to preview music right?

Pay for networks? Not in Australia. We've got fairly restrictive copyright laws here. We don't have a fair use provision for personal use, so ripping a CD so that you can listen to it on your iPod is technically illegal. I guess you're supposed to purchase the digital copy, but we don't have an Australian iTunes store -- even Denmark has iTunes! We've only got three music download providers, and their range is spotty to say the least, even if you're only looking for Top-Forty stuff.

So you can't pin the blame for illegal downloading exclusively on the pirates, at least not in this country where there effectively is no legal option.

Re:Why?

[Karaman]

Rickard Nickson:
"Sharing music is not stealing!"
"I repeat, Sharing music is not stealing!"

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

....30 seconds ought to be enough for anybody !!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may feel that copying music and giving it away is not comparable to stealing, but the United States Congress has passed statutes that say it is. Those who choose to break the law, for example, by duplicating and distributing other people's intelectual property, are risking civil liability.

Rather than telling somebody who knows what the law is that they are making a mistake, do something to try to change the law.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

You might not think so, but it is according to the law.

It's a technical aberration created by attorneys. There are only two types of transactions: one which involves transfer of ownership and one which does not. Call them whatever you like.

Read a few more legal books before you call anyone else on a lack of education

I've already identified your need to include useless commentary to bolster your self-esteem but, really, must you make it so obvious?

There is an inherent requirement for a limitation on the time of use in the agreement for it to be considered a rental instead of a sale.</i>

Maybe you'll get it eventually. There is only one fundamental defining factor in the nature of a transaction: Was ownership transferred with the object or not? The details of limits on time of possession (for non-transferral of ownership) or the monetary price of the transactions are, for the most part, irrelevant.

Re:Why?

[Strenoth]

If I go into a store and pay money to get a CD, at no point is there so much a hint that I am renting, not buying. I am not signing a rental agreement, I am not using an account for rentals, nothing. So how is it not a purchase?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times has someone PAID you to bend down? Or sent you an SUV to fuck the pussy you came from?

Or maybe you just like that pussy too much?

Re:Why?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Rather than telling somebody who knows what the law is that they are making a mistake, do something to try to change the law.

His logic is flawed. I didn't say I didn't like the law.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a "giant logic flaw" mod as well - for your insane post. Stealing is stealing.

Futhermore, the majority of slashdolt is dumb.

Re:Why?

[antiMStroll]

How many times must this be explained before it sinks in? The GPL is designed to maximize sharing, in fact to require it, while copyright's aim (and this wasn't its original intent but a distortion from literally centuries of special interest corporate lobbying) is to prevent it beyond anyone's reasonable lifetime. There is no contradiction between supporting enforcement of the GPL and non-commercial copying and distribution. In both cases the vision is an open society. Why are so many here and their happy moderators unable to see past the means to this simple goal?

Re:Why?

[NoData]

If someone could do that, then lo and behold, suddenly the car manufacturers would claim THEY own the car concept, you just own a license to operate an instance of it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Start voting with your dollars
> Pray tell me how we're supposed to do that when the very first people who get their grubby paws on our dollars, via taxes, are the people who are writing blatantly plutocratic laws.

Do not pay any tax you can otherwise avoid or evade. That's a start. As you recognize, they've broken the (non-existent) social contract. They are illegitiment. Demand self-government, and act to achieve it.

I hope that answers your question.

Re:Why?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Here we go again, again.

Yes, copyright infringement isn't the same thing as physical theft, but, the end result is, for the seller of either, the same: They are deprived of the money that they are entitled to, for the goods they provide, under the terms they provide them as provided for under law.

If you can't be right in general, be right very, very specifically, eh? Since you've removed the argument from its context and this subject is boring as all hell, I'm not going to bother arguing. I'm sure somebody else farther down has made lots of good points for you to ignore.

Your straw man is largely uninteresting and not worth a response, although you're right, he does seem like a bastard. But I'll address this part:

They resent any attempt by anyone, regardless of stripe, to make money, unless the amounts charged fall within their definition of "fair" - despite the fact that such isn't theirs to define in the first place.

You both object to people wanting things to be fair and discount the opinion of everyone that doesn't meet your criteria of "good enough to define fair." You sound like a swell guy.

Oh, and I just can't resist:

Go ahead, then, if you must.

It seems to have affected your ability to write sentences:

People in glass houses shouldn't throw commas, AC.

"lobotamy" is generally spelled "lobotomy"

Oh, crap! You're right! I'm so ashamed.

Re:Why?

[boky]

I don't know about y'all but personally I think that buying music online @ 128kbs is a rip-off.

My reasining being (based on totally personal views and observations): you download music @ 128kbs and you are aware it's not an excellent quality, but "quite good enough".

Now, if I were to buy the music online I would excect at least the same quality I get on CD; so let's say, a 256kbs or more MP3 would be reasonable. And it would be reasonable for me to do the same thing with that music as I do with my CDs: (re)encode the to OGG, put them on my computer/stereo/car player/portable player/take them to a (private) party with me... If I paid for it, I'll make damn sure others are not getting it for free.

Please note: I am not aware of any of the sites selling music that offer this kind of service, so don't pls don't rampage about that.

Re:Why?

[blackicye]

I read the last "loaded" statement as meaning something different from your interpretation.

Not so much that providing the most money to the RIAA's coffers entitles them to the right to infringe on copyrights.

Rather that the RIAA is hunting down and alienating the consumers from which they benefit the most.

Also your analogy with Gin could use a slight adjustment.

Closer to the truth, Would perhaps be if you postulated that someone made an exact copy of a bottle of Gin and then proceeded to let their friends make wouldn't otherwise purchase said Gin, copies of the bottle, all at their own cost. Then would you have a problem?

Further if a few of their friends decided to go out and buy bottles of the Gin from the original manufacturers. Where is the damage exactly?

With the sorry current state of popular music, I'd say the RIAA is doing these people a favor. They won't be listening to this crap in the future.

That said, Fuck the RIAA! :)

Re:Why?

[E Galois]

"... I'd rather have this bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy!" -- T. Bone Stankus

Re:Why?

[Doctor_Jest]

By the same token you can attack the claim the "loss" calculated by the RIAA is based on a fallacy. They proceed from the false assumption that if the person had no access to the music illegally, they would buy the CD. I submit that this is also simply unprovable and therefore should not be used in the calculation of "loss" the labels feel they have as a result of P2P. However, such a logical leap is never questioned when the labels trumpet it in articles and whatnot. No one says "how do you know person X would buy it?" If they wouldn't buy it anyway, it's not a loss and it cannot be calculated as such.

Basically, I'm saying the specious claims are not limited to the P2P defenders in this conflict.

Also, by your line of thinking, you can also make the connection that piracy isn't affecting sales at all for music in general, because those who engage in P2P infringement are among the targeted group who purchase the CDs anyway, and that is the RIAA's most lucrative demographic. So by that assumption, perhaps the quality of releases does have more of an adverse effect on sales, rather than the specter of "piracy" that simply is trumpeted so sell the general public a bill of goods ("it's better if we control your computer, because those evil bastard pirates are going to hack you!") But that's another line of discussion.... I digress. ;) Or perhaps $3/gallon gas is cutting into some people's entertainment budgets.... The RIAA is amazingly able to put blinders on.... no matter how many facts get in their way.

Besides, I left my tinfoil hat in my car... I can't go into that line of conspiracy thinking without it. :-)

Re:Why?

[rtb61]

An interesting point. The hypocrytical nature of copyright protection. The original point of copyright was to provide limited protection for works that would add value to society.

So what of works that add no value to society but society and it's citizens must bear the costs of protecting those works. What of supposedly "copyrightable works" (remember based upon the consititution they must add value to society real value not just dollars at any price) that actually do harm to society, so not only does society bear the costs of the damage done by those works but also the costs of protecting and to add final insult to injury punish other people for attempting to devalue those works.

WIth ever increasing amounts of content becoming available (there is already far more than any person can consume in a lifetime) and this will only increase and the rate of increase will continue to rise. Should not society at some near point in time, step back and review what works should be protected and what works should just be ignored.

How many drunken drugged up minstrals does this world need, how many mentally disturbed thespians is to many. I know they are dropping out and going into politics and it is pretty hard to tell where they will do the most damage. I suppose it all depends (just like when a sock puppet speaks) on whose hand/hands is up there.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

My other car is first

*groan*

Re:Why?

[iamplasma]

Absolutely right, all of those things are perfectly open to debate. I'm not saying I've proven piracy doesn't help sales (though I very much doubt it does), I'm only saying that the pro-p2p submitter's claims are flawed, being based on incorrect logic.

Personally, I don't really think harm matters, I just think that morally a copyright holder, who has gone to the bother of creating music or other intellectual property (or paid someone else to make it) should have the right to limit the distribution of that work, since were it not for them it wouldn't exist. I don't really see why harm is essential.

If I make an incredibly beautiful painting, and decide that while I'm willing to show it to people, I absolutely can't bear to have photos taken of it (for whatever reason, maybe I'm just an eccentric artist), and I make this wish clear, so everybody knows I don't want photos taken. Given this, is it then okay for someone to take a photo of my paiting? It doesn't hurt me or the painting (it may even publicise it more so I get more viewers, benefiting me), but I just think that morally I, or anyone in a similar position, should be able to place that restriction, and anyone who violates my above wishes is committing a breach of trust, and a wrong against me, regardless of actual harm.

In other words, I don't know if the RIAA are morons or not trying to fight piracy, but I just think they have the right to do so.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't buy the right to distribute the music.

You didn't buy the right to do whatever you want with the music.

Show me a copy of the EULA of the CD that says you can share the music with whomever you want, as many times as you want?

Show me the EULA that says you can redistribute the music?

Or.. is it "Once teh media kompany bows to my needs, I'll continue to steal and break the license?" Ok fine. Be that way.

I'm sure that if someone took your hypothetical GNU project (GPL'd) and modified the source, repackaged it, and resold it, you'd be ok with that... since company X would counter: 'you need to alter the way you license your software, otherwise we'll keep doing what we want with your bits."

Sounds good to me.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

but, the end result is, for the seller of either, the same: They are deprived of the money that they are entitled to, for the goods they provide, under the terms they provide them as provided for under law.

Still wrong. Nobody is "entitled" to anything. Additionally, the seller still has the item to sell to someone else, which is not the case if it were stolen.

The problem is that the seller wants to sell it for much, much more than it cost to produce. Making a copy of it instead is a way of saying, "your price is too high". People buy Linux DVDs because it's often cheaper and faster than downloading it for "free".

Let's say we advance nanotech to the point where we can copy not just bits, but physical objects. E.g. you have a bottle of 1851 Wine, I press a button and make one. Or you have a new car, I press a button and now I have one. Should we disallow this and instead make people go into debt to pay $500 a month to auto finance companies?

The reason copyright, patents, and all laws exist is ostensibly for the PUBLIC good. If it turns out that in order to make your e-books viable that we have to outlaw "illegal" reading, we need to ditch your business model, not our rights.

A few people could make a lot of money if humans were kept in big cages and forced to work to eke out a bare existence. But you'll never get to Star Trek that way. Technological advancement belongs to all.

Re:Why?

[moogle001]

A perfectly reasonable argument. But its quite simply unrealistic. Despite whatever theory of rights we have concerning our own identity, there's really not much we can do to prevent all the companies in the world tracking us for all sorts of commercial endeavors. Likewise, when every cell phone is a camera we cannot keep pictures of ourselves off the internet, let alone works of art. Putting that aside, you have to ask yourself whether this right you suggest really applies to the copyright holder or the true creator. When a select few corporations own the majority of music, do we extend to them this same tolerance of excentricity? Do they really deserve artistic control when they've put in no artistic effort? Our society says that ideas and techniques can be bought and sold as a general rule (while finding ways around when it when it suits us), but does that mean so can the respect, loyalty, and consideration that comes with those ideas? And of course, one could go on and on about whether any person truly owns an idea, and whether or not it belongs to society itself...

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

I just think that morally a copyright holder, who has gone to the bother of creating music or other intellectual property (or paid someone else to make it) should have the right to limit the distribution of that work, since were it not for them it wouldn't exist.

Let's start with a basic premise that everyone (who's sane) agrees upon: People who create the work need to be properly compensated for it, but they aren't entitled to take all of society to the cleaners over it. Fair enough? I think so. This premise is in the Constitution, in the charter document for our Federal Government. There's a clause which secures, to authors and inventors, for a limited time, exclusive rights to their creation.

So who are these copyright holders? First, get it out of your head that these copyright holders are anyone who is protected by the law. Big media companies are like loan sharks. They don't give a damn about the artists and they don't give a damn about the artists rights. The Constitution was written to protect authors, inventors, and creators from entities like big media companies who will use any leverage point, any tactic possible, to wrest control of the original invention or creation from the rightful owner. This is precisely the tactic that the English monarchy used and it is the precise reason for the inclusion of of the intellectual property clause in the Constitution. It was recognized that the legal "copyright holder" very rarely has the best interests of the author, inventor, creator, or even society at heart.

Take into account the sheer perversion that has become our Federal Government, the influence of lobbies, the influence of big business, and attempt to find a single shred of protecting original authors and inventors in our system of copyright law. There isn't any. That employee agreement that you signed is a perfect example. Rather than protecting and securing your rights, as a potential author/inventor/creator of IP, copyright law and the courts ensure that your employer has full right to back you into a corner (employed or unemployed? not a tough decision) and wrest your IP from you.

Now that we've identified that the big business players aren't playing by the rules, and neither are the politicians, on what basis should we citizens be required to participate in their set of rules? If it could be shown that the individual artists, authors, and creators, the rightful owners of the copyright, were involved in this process and were destitute as a result of file-sharing, then I would support the legal actions against them. The reality is, however, that the actions of the RIAA and the big media companies with respect to IP are gestures of unrepentant greed. If these actions were being taken through their own hard work, I'd say more power to them. With the amount of federal money which pours into the media industry directly, and the amount of taxpayer money which is wasted on these lawsuits, though, I demand that they stick to the Constitution. Per the Constitution, if anyone has a lawsuit, the artists have a lawsuit against the media companies for taking their copyrights away. The Constitution, and thus the federal government, serves one thing in the realm of IP: To secure to the authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective creations for a limited time. There is no mention of "copyright holder" (aka kinder, gentler extortionist) in the document--and for good reason.

Given this, is it then okay for someone to take a photo of my paiting?

It's not okay, but it's certainly not something I would want codified into law. Did you search them for cameras before you let them in the studio? If you allowed them to bring a camera in then, well, it's your own fault. Don't waste my tax money running them down.

I just think they have the right to do so.

With their own money, yes. Within a jurisdiction which can support them, yes. In Federal Court? Absolutely not. At taxpayer expense? Absolutely not.

Re:Why?

[SilverspurG]

You didn't buy the right to distribute the music.

I'm reading through the Constitution and, you know, I just can't find anywhere in this document where there's a "right of distribution" which is delegated as under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Per the 9th and 10th Amendments, that jurisdiction is reserved then to the states (if it's in the state's charter Constitution) or the individual people.

You know why it's not in there? Because the people who wrote the Constitution realized that "right to distribute" is an artificial aberration. They recognized 200 years ago something which you have absolutely no grasp over today: That if you have something in your possession, you're naturally going to have a right to distribute it. They had the printing press at the time. This would have been a very logical thing for them to consider. You can't say that they didn't think of it.

They left it out for a reason--because the "right to distribute" is another legal scam to subvert the Constitutionally guaranteed copyright which rests with the original author, inventor, or creator. The same as the concept of a transferrable "copyright holder". In the Constitution there is only one copyright holder: the original author, inventor, or creator. Why did they not think to include more verbage about copyright holders? Because they'd had plenty of experience with The Crown being the copyright holder. They knew that the system could easily be twisted to turn into the abomination that it is today.

They tried to head it off at the pass with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Fortunately for 21st century AC trolls, one of the very first things that the first Congress did was to decide that the 9th and 10th Amendments don't really apply to them.

Re:Why?

[dgatwood]

Here's the counterpoint. Assume that you put your artwork in a public place and broadcast pictures of it on TV non-stop for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Someone on the street takes his/her own photo of a print of the art that he/she bought in the gift shop, and shares that photo with others.

This is more the situation in question with music. This "music", mostly of arguably poor quality, drenches the airwaves in a fashion that is free to the consumer. The RIAA doesn't make a penny off of most of this. They get paid by record companies, which unless they are also the publisher of record, do not make royalties on radio airplay. Therefore, applying the same standards, they do not deserve one cent of money obtained from sharing on the net, which one could argue serves the same purpose of being a promotional vehicle for selling the album and/or songs from it.

This, coupled with the strong correlation between people who download music and people who buy lots of music via download services, strongly suggests that these lawsuits are largely without merit. The only reason these suits are continuing is that the RIAA has been careful to pick their battles and not sue people with sufficient resources to actually fight them.

The groups that DO have the right to pursue these suits (but aren't) are ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The day ASCAP starts suing file sharers is the day I drop my membership, as it sure as hell wouldn't be doing most of its lesser-known composers and publishers any favors, IMHO, and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Guess what file sharing does for independent artists. Guess which major group of artists can't get airplay because the airwaves are controlled by RIAA shills. Guess what the RIAA is really afraid of. I'll give you a hint: lost sales revenue of Britney Spears wannabes isn't it. A free market for music. That's what terrifies them. When such a free market actually arrives, they and the record labels they represent will no longer be necessary or useful. They will no longer be in control.

The RIAA knows that they can't stop the flood... but their lawsuits might at least slow it down while they try to figure out how to exploit the new market that is forming and mold it into an oligopoly.

Re:Why?

[hairyfeet]

I personally think you hit the nail perfectly on the head.The problem is EXACTLY that the artist is completely out of the equation.

Take for example Elvis(tm).The man has been buried in his backyard since '77 and yet his tunes won't be public domain until,What,2070? The whole point of copyright was so the artist would be encouraged to make more art,Not so some media corp could cash in for a couple on centuries.

And if they played by the REAL rules that this country was founded on we would have such a wealth of great music in the public domain that we might not be having this discussion right now. But thanks to the price fixing record companies(c) the music that was old when we were children won't be public domain until after we are dust (if ever).

The only way to fight other than privacy is your wallet.And for all you free software fans here is an easy way-http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/-This page will tell you before you buy if an artist is in bed with the RIAA. There is even a grease monkey script for Firefox that will show you when you search Amazon which ones to avoid.

There are so many wonderful styles and great artists that aren't owned by the RIAA that by avoiding the bad guys(c) you might actually find some great new music for yourself while avoiding an Evil Empire(tm).

Re:Why?

[pdjohe]

A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong.

Very true. I'll expand a little...

If you buy a book, you have a physical, real object that you can do whatever you want with. For example, you can:
1. Let a friend borrow it for a while.
2. Give your book away.
3. Sell your book to somebody else.
4. Lose your book.
5. Destroy your book.
6. Keep your book forever.

Sure you can photocopy the book and give the photocopy to a friend, but this requires work and there is quality degradation. With music, the work to copy albums is almost nothing at all, and there for most people, any quality degradation is acceptable.

It all comes down to this: an object in the real work is never the same as an object on a computer and should not be treated as the same thing. Period.

Re:Why?

[EzInKy]

You hate the system, fine. I'm not exactly fond of the way things like this are going right now either. If you want it to be different, file sharing copyright content will not make things better, it will just get your ass sued. Start voting with your dollars.


But that goes against human nature. Take pot for example. Despite the fact that it is illegal millions of people smoke it and millions more don't care that they do. Oh sure the government will arrest a few people now and then but that doesn't change anything. People are going to do what people want to do and when enough of them want to do the same thing there isn't any act of Congress that's going to stop them.

Re:Why?

[rohan972]

are you seriously trying to suggest that copyright infringement is _not_ murder? Communist!

Seriously though, no court in the world will convict you of theft for breaching copyright. Yes, yes, we know, violating copyright is against the law, but the law doesn't call it theft. Neither should we. Really, calling a copyright violator a thief is probably slander, and therefore punishable by law.

We (who don't call it theft) don't need to justify our position. If you are going to call it theft, please reference for us even one legal code that refers to copyright infringement as theft. Or lacking that, perhaps a moral or religious teaching to justify calling copyright violators theives (We may not agree with it, but it would at least provide a reason for you to say it). If you can't find even one reference in law or commonly accepted moral/religious teaching to justify calling copyright infringement theft, then perhaps you ought to stop. Think about it.

Re:Why?

[mabinogi]

I don't care what you call it.

But it takes time and effort - a LOT of time and effort to produce good music, and the only person who has a right to give away someone's time and effort is the person who put in that time and effort in the first place - not some dickhead with a computer (or a tape recorder for that matter).

Music will always be copied and the musician will only rarely be compensated, every sane musician knows and accepts that - and to some extent it can be a good thing. At least copied recordings aren't as bad as someone playing your music and claiming it as their own, and it can help get exposure when done right.
But what really pisses us off is that some people somehow think it's their _right_ for us to make music for them for nothing, and then hide behind "It's not 'Theft'" arguments as if that somehow makes it right. To those people, I say Fuck You.

But if we're going to play word games, I propose an alternative - don't call it "Theft", don't call it "Piracy", and especially don't call it "Copyright Infringement" - instead every time you share a file, I want you to say with pride that you are committing an act of "Freeloading off someone else's hard work without giving them a fucking cent"

"FOSEHWWGTFC", doesn't it just roll off the tongue?

Re:Why?

[QuantumG]

But it takes time and effort - a LOT of time and effort to produce good music, and the only person who has a right to give away someone's time and effort is the person who put in that time and effort in the first place - not some dickhead with a computer (or a tape recorder for that matter).


They clearly did give it away, otherwise how would you have a copy of it? The point is, they want to restrict you from making copies so that people have to go to them to get it. What right has he got to that?

Re:Why?

[el_womble]

Depends where you are in the world. F.A.C.T. The Federation Against Copyright Theft preach that it is actually theft in the UK, and they're on TV ads, DVD ads, Cinema ads... but most people take the ads off the pirated DVDs ;)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The right given to them by the law. If you don't like the law, try to get it changed, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Re:Why?

[DiarmuidBourke]

I agree mostly with your point. But you say, "Start voting with your dollars.". How can one start Start voting with their Dollars/Euro/Yen/Whatever change anything? Is there some shop that sells cd's below what the RIAA/IRMA/**** recommends? I know Itunes sells for 99c a song. But for a large proportion (maybe even a majority) of music lovers, we don't have a credit card, so are limited to buying in a local music store.

Here in Ireland I don't like buying music in the shop because of the extorsionate prices, tax+rrp+packaging+staff_wages throws the price way up. I'm lucky to find a cd I want under 18Euros. 18 for 10-14 songs just seems ludacris.

There are also other reasons I don't like buying music, but they are off-topic. Also, I realise it's easier to complain than to solve something. But I'm at a loss trying to solve this.

----
Diarmuid B.

Re:Why?

[gnasher719]

"Sure you can photocopy the book and give the photocopy to a friend, but this requires work and there is quality degradation. With music, the work to copy albums is almost nothing at all, and there for most people, any quality degradation is acceptable. "

Having just started to turn my LPs into digital form, I can assure you that the work to copy albums is most definitely NOT almost nothing at all.

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

Now copyright theft would be a very interesting crime. "help me officer, someone stole my copyright and is now suing me for copyright infringement!"

Re:Why?

[xtracto]

In AllOfMp3.com you can preview all of the songs with low quality. Of course, some people do not like buying there but, anyway you can use it if you are not sure about a new release.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO the fact that "it takes so much effort" to make a record is part of the whole problem here. The big labels are spending so much money on advertitsing artists they have to run the music through audience tests like if it was a damn commercial. Music has simply grown from something that was integral to every human (I don't think the tribe shaman went around checking that no-one was playing his tunes between the ceremonies) to something that, to the majority of listeners, practically only exists as a refined, produced ooze that's supposed to fit as many people's tastes as possible.

FOSEHWWGTFC seems to be the only way to turn this around and KILL THE MUSIC INDUSTRY so we can have the art of music back from the corporations.

NOTE: this does not apply to marginal artists releasing stuff on small labels.

NOTE2: I also make music, and no, it doesn't take all that much effort. Only when you assume that you have some God given right to live off of your music hobby is when you start drawing conclusions such as the one in the post above.

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

One is distributing the song without the permission of the author (rule for getting a permission: "pay money"), the other is distributing software without the permission of the rights holder (rule for getting permission: "distribute source"). The RIAA says you can't copy and distribute their stuff unless you're an official distributor and approriately paying them, the FSF says you can't copy and distribute their stuff unless you provide the sourcecode or instructions how to get it.

Both systems work from a single ruleset: The rule that the copyright holder can deny or approve copying, redistribution and the creation of derivative works. Whether he does so by defining a rule, granting or denying permission on a case by case base or not allowing it to anyone else at all.

If you don't allow the rightsholder to grant or deny permission to copy or create derivatives you also revoke the right of the GPL to stop people from making modifications and releasing them without sourcecode.

Or do you want to force your belief system down my throat by allowing only certain rules for accepting/denying copying/derivation?

Re:Why?

[QuantumG]

That's the whole point of this thread. Please don't jump into the middle of a conversation, we've already covered this ground.

Re:Why?

[bentcd]

Once you decide to share your work with the public, then that is exactly what you have done. It is completely unreasonable that you should be able to thereafter control society's general use of the material beyond, perhaps, reasonable laws preventing others from profiting from it for a time.
If we are to progress beyond the 20th century, we cannot permit the existence of arbitrary veto of cultural dissemination of artworks. We would stagnate, shrivel up and die (well, culturally speaking anyway).

Re:Why?

[twiddlingbits]

If the statistics show the link, it's there. Simple as that unless someone has deliberatly messed with the data. Based on my statistics that I learned in Grad School, there are only two inferences you can draw, either the IS a link, or the data is bad (flawed study?). Personally I think those who share music do so out of a love of music and to bring joy to others. Of course there are those out there doing it just to make money or piss off the RIAA.

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

One is distributing the song without the permission of the author (rule for getting a permission: "pay money"), the other is distributing software without the permission of the rights holder (rule for getting permission: "distribute source").

Yes, but it's doing so under completely different circumstances. The GPL makes sense. Traditional copyright doesn't.

The RIAA says you can't copy and distribute their stuff unless you're an official distributor and approriately paying them, the FSF says you can't copy and distribute their stuff unless you provide the sourcecode or instructions how to get it.

Exactly.

Both systems work from a single ruleset: The rule that the copyright holder can deny or approve copying, redistribution and the creation of derivative works.

Yes, but again, one application of the rule benefits society, and one hurts it.

If you don't allow the rightsholder to grant or deny permission to copy or create derivatives you also revoke the right of the GPL to stop people from making modifications and releasing them without sourcecode.

As a government, well, you could, but you're talking about law now. The original comment was about whether or not it was "a huge deal", not about whether or not it was a violation of the law. It's like saying that going 5mph faster in your car on your way to the volunteer fire department is not a problem, but running a red light while going to the supermarket is. Sure, they're both traffic laws, but to say that sometimes breaking traffic laws is OK and sometimes it isn't is not hypocrisy in any way.

Or do you want to force your belief system down my throat by allowing only certain rules for accepting/denying copying/derivation?

That's what the government is doing. We're just talking about whether or not it's a big deal. In other words, we're just talking about our belief system, not forcing it down someone's throat.

Let me point out another huge difference between the two things. In one case, that of P2P, the person in question is violating copyright law for the benefit of others. In the other, that of not distributing source, the person is probably violating the law to make a profit. That's a huge distinction in many people's mind. There are many people who don't get bent out of shape about P2P who nonetheless would get bent out of shape about someone selling pirated CDs on the sidewalk. Likewise, there are many people who wouldn't care if I ran a P2P network to distribute Linux ISOs without the source, but would care if I sold Linux ISOs on the sidewalk and didn't offer the source (even more if the source was otherwise unavailable).

In any case, the people calling it hypocrisy don't seem to know what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy is when you lie about whether or not you think something is wrong. Distinguishing between two different things and calling one wrong but the other right isn't hypocrisy. In this case we're not even talking about a double standard. A double standard is when one applies different rules to different people, based on who the person is. This is just an example of applying different rules to different circumstances, based on what those circumstances are.

Re:Why?

[Sj0]

The truth of the matter is that when you're talking about a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a regular person, there is no 'right' time to spring that on a person. It will crush a persons descendants for generations. Children will inheret the unpayable debt and ensuing maintinence payments, and it will act as a poison for a long time.

If Charles Mansons sons are allowed to live somewhat normal lives without being thrown in jail to help complete his life sentences, I don't see how this should be legal. It isn't at all ethical, no matter WHAT the crime is.

Re:Why?

[The Clash Man]

"Start voting with your dollars." But that is exactly what we are doing. By downloading the music, we are refusing to buy that standard drivel that comes from the big *AA companies. I am voting with my dollars by not giving them any.

Re:Why?

[AndersOSU]

Well I hate to inturupt a fairly logical debate (wait where am I again?) with this, but if the artist owned the copyright I'd feel much more strongly about piracy than I do with the labels owning the copyright. It may not be sound logic, but when the label stops viewing music as art, and starts viewing it as content to me some of the sanctity disapears, and all I see is greedy suits exploiting coerced artists.

Re:Why?

[tekboy25]

You are one artist with one painting. A more correct analogy would have 90% of all artists' work is in the hands of a handful of greedy suits who control the whole world's privilege of looking at art, and never allow any pictures of any of it.

Re:Why?

[computational super]

But I'll bet if somebody invented a matter replicator and started sharing matter-replicated whisky over the internet, Jim Beam would be suing like crazy to put a stop to that blatant alcohol piracy.

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

The GPL makes sense. Traditional copyright doesn't.

Copyright benefits society by making ideas sellable assets and allowing artists (including writers, musicians, etc) to work fulltime on their art instead of doing it as a hobby while needing another job to make a living. That means more and higher quality art. Look at e.g. a videogame made these days. They take tens of people one or two years of working (more than) fulltime, you can't tell me they could pull that off if they couldn't make a living off it.

Sure, some details of the copyright implementation could be changed without harming its usefulness but you seem to take issue with the entire system.

As a government, well, you could, but you're talking about law now. The original comment was about whether or not it was "a huge deal", not about whether or not it was a violation of the law. It's like saying that going 5mph faster in your car on your way to the volunteer fire department is not a problem, but running a red light while going to the supermarket is. Sure, they're both traffic laws, but to say that sometimes breaking traffic laws is OK and sometimes it isn't is not hypocrisy in any way.

I'm bringing this up because it's wrong to complain about a rule when applied in a way that doesn't benefit you and claim it's okay to ignore that rule but complaining when people do the same when the rule is applied in a way that benefits you. In this case, copyright applied to music means you have to pay for a copy of the music and thus doesn't benefit you so you claim it can be ignored because you think copyright protects works too long (while copying something made last year) or the rightsholders are evil while copyright applied to the GPL means e.g. MS can't take Linux code and integrate it into Windows without opensourcing windows. If they did that you'd be there complaining because it'd benefit you if they were to release the entire Windows sourcecode.

Let me point out another huge difference between the two things. In one case, that of P2P, the person in question is violating copyright law for the benefit of others.

And the disadvantage of certain people, i.e. the rightsholders.

In the other, that of not distributing source, the person is probably violating the law to make a profit.

Which also benefits certain people (the violator and aynyone he shares the money with, e.g. his family, company, etc).

Both benefit some people and hurt others. While the numbers of people benefitted and hurt differ, that doesn't mean one is more right than the other. And the law can only say one thing: It's wrong to hurt the rights of other people.

I mean, we're not talking about something you'll die without, all you can buy on the intellectual property market is luxury. And luxury isn't necessarily free nor does it need to be. The only reason people have for illegally downloading copyrighted works is because they don't want to pay the pricetag attached. Hardly an altruistic goal.

Re:Why?

[GuyverDH]

If they're not doing anything useful, or something for someone other than themselves, then they may as well be doing nothing at all.

Those who go through life doing nothing for others may as well never have existed.

Re:Why?

[Kythe]

Personally, I don't really think harm matters, I just think that morally a copyright holder, who has gone to the bother of creating music or other intellectual property (or paid someone else to make it) should have the right to limit the distribution of that work, since were it not for them it wouldn't exist. I don't really see why harm is essential.

They do have that right, within limits: evidence of harm is relevant to the discussion, both morally and legally. Copyright does not begin and end with who owns what. There's more to it than that, including public good.

Anyway, the difference now is that big-money copyright holders have set themselves up as para-law-enforcement agencies, and with very little evidence and no oversight are using their vast resources, new subpoena powers and draconian new laws to extort large sums of money from people regardless of guilt or evidence of actual harm to the copyright holder.

What's worse, they're using the alleged threat of piracy and their lawsuits to attempt to shut down file sharing in general, painting it as illegal, wrong and punishable in and of itself. They are doing this, of course, because legal file sharing is a direct threat to their business. Artists no longer need to use RIAA companies to distribute copies of their music (which can be used to promote tours, where artists make most of their money). The record companies know this, and they're trying to get Congress to legislate their business model. It's as corrupt a thing as I think I've ever seen.

By the way, for all everyone knows, the RIAA may be basically paying bounty hunters for IP addresses, which would create a huge incentive for the bounty hunters to generate IP addresses out of thin air. I'd be very interested in knowing whether or not stuff like this is happening, BTW--there's at least some indication that the RIAA is using contractors to "track down pirates". Anyone know what the terms are?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever sold a single CD? I have never heard of you. It is likely that you suck. No one wants to buy or steal your music.
Sort of like the homophobes who think that despite the fact that not a single female in the world is interested in them, somehow every gay man wants to ram them in the ass... Sell some CDs and then complain, asshole.

Re:Why?

[Juhani]

"If we were ruled by dictators who held mock elections every four years, how would you recommend fighting them?"

Ever hear of the right to keep and bear arms?

Re:Why?

[Alioth]

(disclaimer: Yes, I know Slashdot has a lot of different folks on it and not all share those same set of views at the same time, but a lot of them seem to.)

Well, if a lot of them seem to - name ten of them.

Ah, OK, it was just a blind assertion after all!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Start voting with your dollars

Pray tell me how we're supposed to do that when the very first people who get their grubby paws on our dollars, via taxes, are the people who are writing blatantly plutocratic laws.

Becoming more politically active would be the best solution. But there are easier ways to rage against the machine like RIAA Radar: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ and Downhill Battle: http://www.downhillbattle.org/index.php for what it's worth.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

Because you want to force them to deal with your limitations on YOUR IP, while not dealing with their limitations on THEIR IP.

It's a double standard.

It doesn't matter if the 'goal is openness' or whatever noble thing (in your opinion) you are after. If you think you should be able to enforce restrictions on your IP, then you have to let them enforce restrictions on theirs. Even if they want different restrictions than you do.

Re:Why?

[mrogers]

I want to echo the double-standard mentioned elsewhere in that some people defend infringing on copyrighted materials via P2P but get upset when the copyright of the GPL is violated. Just something to think about, that's all.

It's a fair point, but maybe those people are more concerned with that spirit than the letter of the law. The intent of the GPL is to protect contributions to the commons, while the intent of filesharing lawsuits is to prevent contributions to the commons. It's ironic that the same mechanism - copyright law - is used to achieve both goals, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's hypocritical to support one use of the mechanism while opposing the other.

Re:Why?

[Tekzel]

I dont recognize it as either copyright infringement or theft. First of all, me downloading a track of music I would NEVER have bought in the first place costs them nothing at all. In your scenario, by stealing that bottle of Gin you have cost quite a few people something. Whether the distinction is right or wrong here is immaterial to the point of that statement.

Now, as for the copyright thing. These people have manipulated the laws so rediculously as to almost make it my DUTY to get the crap they call music for free. They are trying to use purchased politicians and strong arm tactics to protect an outdated business model. Hell what if the buggy whip makers had bought politicians and made buying cars illegal since it would reduce their sales? I see little difference.

So, I will continue to perform my duty to this great nation and rob the RIAA blind.

Re:Why?

[ultranova]

"The artists are not loosing anything."

So, you don't understand royalties (or spell checking).

Royalties mean that an artist gets paid a certain amount of money for each CD sold. If a potential CD buyer downloads the song instead, the CD doesn't get sold (assuming that each person who downloaded the song would have bought the CD instead - a fundamentally flawed assumption, but one usually used in such calculations), and the artist doesn't get royalty for it. However, the artist doesn't lose anything. He simply doesn't get as much as he might have in some alternative reality where file sharing didn't exist.

So it appears that the grandparent understands the meaning of royalties quite well, while you don't understand the meaning of loss. Not getting paid does not equal losing money. You can't lose something you didn't get, since you never had it in the first place.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention all those who argue that nothing is wrong with duplicating information and distributing it willy-nilly would cry bloody murder if I duplicated all of the information that they created during the day to day life and uploaded it to the internet.

Even though nothing physical is being taken, none of them would be excited to have a tap placed on the lines that carry their phone conversations. Wouldn't be too thrilled to have me install telephoto webcams peeking through every little gap in their curtains. Would completely fail to embrace my putting up an electronic billboard outside their house showing their complete financial picture. And they would lose nothing physical.

For all of the wishy-washy "information wants to be free" and "I'm not stealing anything" slogan shouters, the reality is, people want something they find of value for free. It's strictly a matter of self enrichment without effort or cost to themselves.

Re:Why?

[Stone Pony]

Slander is a civil offence. You, as the slanderee (possibly not a real word) would have to sue the perpetrator of the alleged slander. Then you'd have to prove, on the balance of probabilities (because it's a civil, not a criminal, case), that the alleged slander had damaged your reputation.

I suspect that the defendant would use the defence of "fair comment": that while your reputation may have been damaged, the allegation was accurate. Lawsuits are notoriously difficult to predict, but I suspect that a jury comprised of real people, as opposed to slashbots, would find in favour of the defendant. They won't be impressed by your: "it's not theft, I just got it without paying by copying it off the net. Information wants to be free, sheeple" bullshit. They'll look at the end of result of your activities and conclude that you didn't have the music before, you've got the music now, you don't seem to have paid for it in-between, end of story.

So sue away, and good luck to you; because you're going to need it.

Re:Why?

[drsquare]

It's hypocritical to ignore a law when convenient, and then to criticise other people doing the same.

It's like drink driving and then condemning people driving 10mph over the limit.

If Slashdotter's weren't interested in piracy, or Linux, there wouldn't be all this wailing and gnashing of teethin every piracy article, they'd just accept that copyright infringement isn't acceptable and get on with their lives. It's the double-standards based on convenience that piss me off.

Re:Why?

[Stone Pony]

"This "music", mostly of arguably poor quality,"

This gets raised all of the time, and it is totally irrelevant. The quality (or lack of it) of a work is neither here nor there in a discussion about copyright. Raising it just muddies the waters (which, I dare say, is often the writer's intention).

It doesn't matter that most songs that get radio airplay are rubbish. It doesn't matter that all but two songs on every album are worthless filler. Artists have a right to release bad products, just as you have the right not to buy them. What you don't have the right to do, though, is to determine how the artist's work should be distributed, even where your desires clearly run contrary to the artist's wishes (and indeed financial interests, since you're not paying).

Re:Why?

[PromANJ]

What should humanity strive for? Everyone's right to make money, or everyone's right to have a quality life? What's worth more, your new sports car, or one million people slightly happier? If I invent an important medicine that is nearly free to produce, does my right to make money outweight the right of people to be cured and have a better life? Should I have the right to squat the medicine and like sell it for $10 000 per shot when I can cure 10 000 people for free?

Music/movies/games/books/art/inventions (MMGBAI) may not be a medicine or food, but it does increase the quality of people's life significantly, and potentially for free! How much would your health be worth without MMGBAI? Yah I know there's still sex, but not for everyone :(

The only way to be safe from piracy is to charge for doing stuff, not having done it. I can see how that can be tricky in many cases though. Wasn't the idea with the original copyright law balance between: having people produce new MMGBAI - and having as many people enjoying MMGBAI? The right to make money (for a while) is only there as a carrot for production of MMGBAI.

Re:Why?

[compro01]

with the price of a CD, i'm not gonna go buy a whole CD with one song i know that i like as i heard it legallly (radio). i'll download a bunch of the song to see if that song i heard is the only good one, or if the rest of the CD is worth listening to. if i like atleast 3/4 of the songs, i'll buy it (provided i can get it as more often that not, if it isn't britany spears or boy bands, the local music store hasn't even heard of it) if not, i'll keep that one song that i happen to like. i still say that the supidest move the recording industry made was when they eliminated a singles format. the CD burning booths idea for record stores were a good idea, too bad the people in charge are idiots.

Re:Why?

[drsquare]

This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.

I think the point is here, they're pirating, which means they downloaded it illegally, hence no point of sale. If they wanted to be considered customers, surely they should have bought it legally?

Seems pretty simple to me, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Did these people not know about copyright law? Maybe they did and just chose to ignore it. In which case they can't really be too surprised when the copyright holders don't like back and take it. They knew what they were getting into, probably thought they just wouldn't get caught.

No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.

So effectively you're saying that copyright is out of date. Meaning that once you've bought a DVD or CD, you're free to copy it endlessly to everyone in the world. If you mean that, then say it, don't just beat around the bush attacking easy targets like like corporations.

Of course realise that this means that films and TV programmes are effectively unmakable by anyone other than generous billionaires, except on a BBC-style licence system, which wouldn't work in isolation as it relies a lot on outside material. In fact that wouldn't work either as no-one would bother paying the free.

And don't expect much quality music when no-one can afford a recording studio.

+4 interesting? It seems that the moderation system, instead of the intended purpose of filtering out trolls and giving the better posts more visibility, just serves as a system for like-minded people to moderate up each others posts as a sort of clique, and moderating down outsiders.
        If you want to get modded up on Slashdot, don't post what you think, don't post something that you think people will find interesting, just post what you think they'll agree with. Post 'feel good' posts. Here are some good starting points:

"Google is innovative, Microsoft just steals."
"The ipod is better than anything, because the interface counts more than anything on a device which spends 99.9% of its life in your pocket."
"Piracy is great, anyone who says otherwise is a MPAA shill."
"Patents are always evil."

Accuracy, facts or reason don't matter, what matters is the 'fuzzies' it generates in the moderators. This is a place for people who were unpopular at high school to feel popular. Agreeing with the group-think makes them part of the in crowd.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

30 seconds of previewage isn't at all adequate for prog or trance, but.. whatever... just had to mention that.

I've got a solution to that. Copy and paste that 30 seconds to the end of the song many times. Then you have a really long song which is just as boring and monotonous as the original.

When you listen to a trance/jungle/drumnbass/etc song to see if you like it, do you really need to hear every little detail in it?

1. Bass drum sample on each down beat? Check.
2. Snare drum or clapping sample on each up beat, or every other down beat? Check.
3. Retarded piano chops? Check.
4. Ostinato melody with phasing effect?

"Most of the song was good, but I took exception to the phasing effect at 18:03."

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both GPL and RIAA owned intelectual property both have laws and costs associated with them. You cannot copy their works agains their wishes, otherwise it IS copyright violation.
          With the RIAA you pay for you copy of the music with your money, with the GPL you pay with your agreement to release the source code to any GPL software you distribute. Just because you don't agree with the payment method or who the payment goes to does not give you the right to ignore the the copyright laws.
          If you expect your copyrights to be respected, then you also must respect other peoples copyrights. I mean, why is it ok to pirate the latest song thus depriving the copyright holders of their payment, but not ok to make a router than runs linux but doesn't distribute the source code to it, thus pirating GPL code and not paying the "artists" who wrote it by giving you code back to the society.

        It doesn't matter if the recording industry doesn't like to share and is only concerned with their bottom line. Instead of pirating their music, why don't you start looking for indie bands that aren't under the RIAA, start supporting your local bars that have live music(if there are any left in your area, the RIAA has succesfully killed off a huge chunk of the music industry, 1 artist can be playing in 1000 bars at the same time with CDs) or maybe attend a concert or two.

Breaking the law is breaking the law,your time would be better spent writing a letter to congress to fix the problem han trying to justify a double standard of which laws you choose to obey and which you don't.

Re:Why?

[NotWorkSafe]

Why do you assume that because you have never heard their music that it must suck? Not everyone can get their music put into all the major stores.

Re:Why?

[swv3752]

The whole reason that the Constitution allows for copyright is to enrich the Public Domain. The copyright laws in the US have become perverted from this intention. Basically since the 1920's nothing has been entering the Public Domain.

The GPL enforces an openess that is similiar and some respects greater than Public Domain. So it is not a double standard.

Re:Why?

[LurkerXXX]

If you want to argue that extending the copyright lengths to what they are currently is unhealthy and that we should reduce their lengths back toward what they were originally, I'm all with you.

But many on here seem to think that copyright/patenting and allowing folks to have some time to profit from their IP is a terrible thing and should be abolished. I disagree entirely with them and agree with the founding fathers that it's a good idea for just the reason you stated.

Re:Why?

[westlake]

Yes, yes, we know, violating copyright is against the law, but the law doesn't call it theft. Neither should we. Really, calling a copyright violator a thief is probably slander, and therefore punishable by law.

The U.S.Code defines copyright infringement as a felony. WWW.CYBERCRIME.GOV. Which is all that matters to your mates at Club Fed.

In the popular mind, legal words of art have no great place and all crimes against property, including intangible property, are seen as a form of theft. The association is ancient in the western world and cannot be eradicated by fiat.

Re:Why?

[geekee]

"A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong. There are good reasons that it's not good to download the stuff, but comparing it to swiping materials is just going to make you look dumb to the majority of Slashdot.'

If you lower the value of someone's product by giving away copies for free, aren't you stealing something from the author/artist?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

god / good
mod / mood
lot / loot
pot / poot


There is a reason why nobody makes any of the mistakes you mention above. If you weren't such a conceited asshole you'd have realized that while you were writing it.

God mod lot and pot are all pronounced with a short vowel sound, in agreement with their spelling. Good, mood, loot and poot all have a long vowel sound, again in agreement with their spelling.

Lose is pronounced with a long vowel sound even though it's spelled with a short vowel sound, as if it should rhyme with rose, hose, nose, pose, prose or chose.

So you see none of your stupid examples are any good because lose is an exception in spelling and therefore an easy mistake to make.

In conclusion, STFU LOOSER.

Re:Why?

[Macadamizer]

Children will inheret the unpayable debt and ensuing maintinence payments, and it will act as a poison for a long time.

In the U.S. at least, debt is not inherited. If your dad owed $1,000,000 in credit card bills, you wouldn't inherit that debt -- the debt would disappear. Of course, if your dad also had $1,000,000 in assets at death, those assets would be used to pay off the debts -- sorry about your inheritance, son -- but if dad had $0 assets at death, then the $1,000,000 debt would siply disappear.

There are a couple of exceptions, of course -- secured debt (like a mortgage) doesn't disappear. So if you inherit dad's house, you also inherit any liens against the house (like the mortgage). But you could simply let the bank repo the house if you wanted, without affecting your credit, so in reality, even secured debts aren't inherited, unless you choose to keep the security (the house or the car, for example). The other exception is if your dad ran up the $1,000,000 buying you a couple of Bentleys with all of the requisite bling right before he died -- that could be seen as fraud, and if you kept the Bentleys and the bling, you could be responsible for paying for them. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the debt is not inherited by the heirs.

Also, a multi-million dollar lawsuit can also be made to disappear via bankruptcy. Yes, it will mess up your credit for a while, but it's better than having a debt that can never be paid hanging over you, and having your wages garnished, etc.

Re:Why?

[d34thm0nk3y]

I'm attacking the claim that music piracy increases record sales because of a correlation between people who pirate music, and the amount of music they buy.

Why is causation required (and who said it was causation to begin with). The correlation is that music pirates by more music than non pirates. Hence they are the better customer. Traditionally businesses try to entice the better customers.

Re:Why?

[HexRei]

ooh, a flame from an anonymous troll. It's easy to tell an idiot, because you all mistake your opinions for fact.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this "AIDS" attack possibly be brought upon this indivudual by a Gay Nigger?

Re:Why?

[Lepaca Kliffoth]

If iTunes and CDs are any indication, it isn't the artist who determines how his work will be distributed. Nobody's against artists.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's the point of the thread, but _you_'re the one missing it.

It was you who ranted about copyright infringement not being theft, as if that made it OK.

It's not OK, it is illegal, even if it's not theft.

Re:Why?

[dgatwood]

It's not irrelevant if the reason people don't buy as much music these days is because they have gotten burned so many times, buying a CD because they liked the one song on the radio that played. My whole point is that people are using P2P as a glorified radio station with a broader selection. If people are able to hear every track in full a couple of times before deciding to buy or not to buy, they are going to be fooled less than when they could only hear one or two tracks.

And remember that we're really talking about undeserved sales---sales of a product that you can't take back, but that the customer had no way to realize he/she didn't want until after the purchase. Now instead of buying, they try each track, realize that ten of them are crap, and buy two $.99 songs instead of a $17 album. Prior to music sales by the track, they were skipping the entire album....

The net effect over the long term, though, when coupled with the advent of per-track sales, is that downloaders are also exposed to many more songs than they otherwise would be, and thus, are more likely to find songs that they like than people who don't download. When they find songs they like, they are likely to purchase them.

Thus, the quality of songs is -totally- relevant. Quality, coupled with a general economic downturn, is almost the sole cause for the recording industry's woes. Anyone who says differently is kidding him/herself.

Re:Why?

[Wasgo]

How about the 'Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999' which increased the penalties in light of supposed increased loses, or the No Electronic Theft Act, which also amended penalties.

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

Copyright benefits society by making ideas sellable assets and allowing artists (including writers, musicians, etc) to work fulltime on their art instead of doing it as a hobby while needing another job to make a living. That means more and higher quality art.

That's certainly the theory. I have my doubts as to how well it works in practice, though.

Look at e.g. a videogame made these days. They take tens of people one or two years of working (more than) fulltime, you can't tell me they could pull that off if they couldn't make a living off it.

You know what though, I'd gladly give up all the videogames in the world for free online access to the library of congress.

Sure, some details of the copyright implementation could be changed without harming its usefulness but you seem to take issue with the entire system.

Yeah, I do. I think the entire system of copyright should be eliminated. Not changed, not modified, eliminated.

I'm bringing this up because it's wrong to complain about a rule when applied in a way that doesn't benefit you and claim it's okay to ignore that rule but complaining when people do the same when the rule is applied in a way that benefits you.

No, it isn't, not at all.

In this case, copyright applied to music means you have to pay for a copy of the music and thus doesn't benefit you so you claim it can be ignored because you think copyright protects works too long (while copying something made last year) or the rightsholders are evil while copyright applied to the GPL means e.g. MS can't take Linux code and integrate it into Windows without opensourcing windows.

If there wasn't copyright, there wouldn't be a need for Microsoft to open source Windows. Sure, we could ask them for the source code, but it'd be easy enough to reverse engineer it anyway.

If they did that you'd be there complaining because it'd benefit you if they were to release the entire Windows sourcecode.

I wouldn't be complaining, but I would prefer them to release the source code to Windows. But that has nothing to do with copyright law, or the fact that they took Linux code. Microsoft does use BSD-licensed code in its product, and doesn't release the source code. I think this is a bad thing, and I'd prefer if they released their source code, but I'm not complaining about it.

Both benefit some people and hurt others. While the numbers of people benefitted and hurt differ, that doesn't mean one is more right than the other.

Well, I disagree there. One is more right than the other, and that's at least in part because one is more beneficial to society than the other.

And the law can only say one thing: It's wrong to hurt the rights of other people.

The law is irrelevant, though.

I mean, we're not talking about something you'll die without, all you can buy on the intellectual property market is luxury. And luxury isn't necessarily free nor does it need to be. The only reason people have for illegally downloading copyrighted works is because they don't want to pay the pricetag attached. Hardly an altruistic goal.

These people weren't sued for downloading copyrighted works, they were sued for distributing copyrighted works, and considering that they were doing so for no consideration in return, I'd say it *was* an altruistic goal.

Re:Why?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Nope. You're lowering the value of someone's product by giving away copies for free.

Re:Why?

[tcampb01]

By the same token you can attack the claim the "loss" calculated by the RIAA is based on a fallacy. They proceed from the false assumption that if the person had no access to the music illegally, they would buy the CD. I submit that this is also simply unprovable and therefore should not be used in the calculation of "loss" the labels feel they have as a result of P2P.

Actually, you could probably prove that not only is it a bad assumption that the person would buy the CD, you could probably show that the person could not buy the CD -- even if they wanted to.

The whole "you stole billions of dollars from me" argument is based on the notion that the person would have bought the CD had they not obtained it via sharing. I suppose that would be true if the person who downloaded all the music had all the wealth of Bill Gates. The average person that the RIAA is targeting are school & college students. These are people with limited financial resources. If there was absolutely no way to obtain the music through sharing, then they'd probably just buy 1 or 2 CDs on a paycheck as they can afford them and do without the rest.

The argument that the downloader would have bought the music CD had it not been for the file-sharing network is absurd.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're so darned concerned about their precious copyright, why do they give the product away in a medium which is easily replicated to any 10-year old with $15?

Is that like leaving your lunch during the lunch hours in the middle of a high school lunchroom and then whining and crying when someone else eats it?

Re:Why?

[Doctor_Jest]

Exactly my point. The claim is fallacious and even if it could be proven, trying to apply a reasonable man test to the argument leaves the RIAA in dire need of support.

Still, This thread brings up a great point... it's never about artists anymore... it's about those who own the copyright (frequently not the artists, unfortunately)... and whether or not the Constitution really is supposed to allow 47.7 generations of Elvis' descendants to get rich off his work. No. It doesn't (of course... what the hell does "limited" mean if not a finite, short, period of time, right?)

The RIAA is using the specter of piracy to shut down what it feels is the distribution model that will make them obsolete. It scares them to death not being able to constrict supply to drive up prices (and sometimes demand.. not always of course, because you can't constrict supply on shit no one will buy and have it get gobbled up by the general public...)

The RIAA has a PERFECT opportunity to get royalties to the artists for albums LONG out of print or unavailable on CD (or cassette for that matter) but they continue to SIT on their copyrights and decry loss of money FOR SOMETHING THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN SELL ANYMORE. It's silly, really. Honestly, how can they claim a loss for something that's out of print? If it's out of print, it's NOT FOR SALE, so how can revenue be lost?

Give me an iTunes-like (read: non-subscription) store that contains out of print and rare songs... If there's not a huge market for the songs (enough for a pressing to CD anyway)... $0.99 a track is perfectly reasonable for rare B-sides, or whatnot.

I'd get behind that... But no, let's waste our money suing P2P people... It's mind-numbingly stupid to think that the RIAA could possibly get a clue, but I hold out a little hope.

Otherwise, they can keep their overpriced crap.

Re:Why?

[rohan972]

In the popular mind,...

Oh well, I guess I have an unpopular mind.

Re:Why?

[rohan972]

Slander is a civil offence.

Civil law is still law.

They'll look at the end of result of your activities and conclude that you didn't have the music before, you've got the music now, you don't seem to have paid for it in-between, end of story.

by that definition, any Free software I have is stolen? and how does fair use, radio etc. factor into this reasoning? (by the way, I haven't been violating copyrights, perhaps you could just reply to comments instead of making assumptions about me)

Re:Why?

[cfuse]

are you seriously trying to suggest that copyright infringement is _not_ murder? Communist!

Ahem, communist is not very PC you know ... the preferred term is terrorist.

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

These people weren't sued for downloading copyrighted works, they were sued for distributing copyrighted works, and considering that they were doing so for no consideration in return, I'd say it *was* an altruistic goal.

I'm sure these people are also aware that producing a CD is already risky enough for the musicians and that they might decide to release no recordings of their songs (or record only a select few, reserving most of the stuff for concerts) and only perform live. Which would mean you'd get some crappy live recordings at best.

And besides, what benefit to humanity does "free music" have? If they were fighting hunger or diseases I'd agree with you but fighting "the artist's stranglehold on his works" is just a freeloader mentality.

Fact is that we have thousands or even millions of people making their living from copyright, saying these people can go to hell because there's more people wanting stuff for free than people living off the money made from that stuff is mob rule. Mob rule isn't always right. Sure, everybody wants to pay no taxes but without taxes the entire system collapses.

If humanity benefits from free art, I'd say humanityy also benefits from higher quality art, which is something you won't be seeing as much without compensation for art.

Re:Why?

[RedNovember]

My biggest reason for sharing is that it is sharing. It is not stealing. It is not taking something that will deprive another person of ownership. When I share a CD with a friend, you are not loosing anything. The artists are not loosing anything. The only one with a paranoia of loosing money is the Corporate executives. And the only thing the suits are loosing is sleep, hair, and customers who they disfranchise.

I for one would be extremely paranoid if money, sleep, hair, and customers started coming out every time I had to take a dump...

Oh wait...

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

I'm sure these people are also aware that producing a CD is already risky enough for the musicians and that they might decide to release no recordings of their songs (or record only a select few, reserving most of the stuff for concerts) and only perform live.

I wasn't even aware of that. I thought the record companies were the ones taking the bulk of the risk, and that the musicians basically only make money off their live performances anyway.

And besides, what benefit to humanity does "free music" have?

Somewhat more than the benefit of expensive music, which isn't that much, but it's something.

If they were fighting hunger or diseases I'd agree with you but fighting "the artist's stranglehold on his works" is just a freeloader mentality.

I disagree. I shouldn't have to pay anyone to distribute a copy of something using resources I've provided. The only one with a freeloader mentality here is the record companies.

Fact is that we have thousands or even millions of people making their living from copyright, saying these people can go to hell because there's more people wanting stuff for free than people living off the money made from that stuff is mob rule.

There are thousands or even millions of people making their living from extortion and racketeering too. Doesn't mean we should give them carte blanche to continue in that career. I'm not saying these people who can't continue in their career without copyright should go to hell (and I think the numbers are smaller than you are making them out to be, most musicians for instance could make a living off live concerts). I'm just saying if the free market doesn't pay them for what they're doing maybe they should think about getting a real job. Like you said yourself, music just isn't *that* important. If these people were fighting hunger or diseases maybe they'd have a bit more job security.

If humanity benefits from free art, I'd say humanityy also benefits from higher quality art, which is something you won't be seeing as much without compensation for art.

In my experience the best quality art is made for the sake of making art, not for a profit, so I don't think you're right.

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

I wasn't even aware of that. I thought the record companies were the ones taking the bulk of the risk, and that the musicians basically only make money off their live performances anyway.

The RIAA doesn't take any risks. They charge the musician for the recording equipment, the advertising, the distribution and whatever else they can think of and deduct that from the already small cut the musician gets. Those who don't have huge fanbases buying their recordings will often end up owing the record company money.

There are thousands or even millions of people making their living from extortion and racketeering too.

Those aren't businesses you can vote with your wallet against. An extortionist involves you against your will but you can choose not to buy or listen to certain kinds of or all music.

and I think the numbers are smaller than you are making them out to be, most musicians for instance could make a living off live concerts

There are other jobs dependent on copyright, for example almost the entire IT industry. Microsoft, EA, etc. Those companies are huge employers and they profit mostly from selling software, IP. The entire software, movie, music and writing industry would collapse if they couldn't prevent people from selling their software for the cost of a CDR or downloading it.

I'm just saying if the free market doesn't pay them for what they're doing maybe they should think about getting a real job.

In today's economy there's already less workers needed than available, all these people would just add to the unemployment problem. And it won't go away, we're so efficient at producting that we don't need to employ everyone to create vast overproduction.

In my experience the best quality art is made for the sake of making art, not for a profit, so I don't think you're right.

Making art only for the money is one thing, being able to dedicate your life to art because the art you make makes enough money to feed you and your family is another thing. Many great composers or painters made their living from the art they made.

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

The RIAA doesn't take any risks.

Well, I specifically said the record companies, not the RIAA.

They charge the musician for the recording equipment, the advertising, the distribution and whatever else they can think of and deduct that from the already small cut the musician gets. Those who don't have huge fanbases buying their recordings will often end up owing the record company money.

That's almost never the case. What is much more likely is that the cost of "the recording equipment, the advertising, the distribution and whatever else they can think of" is taken as a draw from the future commissions of the record company. If the band ends up not having a big fanbase, they don't owe the record company anything. Further, there are usually advances given to the band, and even these usually don't have to be paid back if the band is not successful.

But even if it were true that the band owed money to the record companies, the record companies would still be taking a huge risk, because if the band flops it is going to go bankrupt, and even if the record company is owed money by them it's not going to be collectable.

"There are thousands or even millions of people making their living from extortion and racketeering too."

Those aren't businesses you can vote with your wallet against

I don't understand what you're saying here. You can certainly choose not to pay someone who is extorting you. If Big Tony threatens to break your legs if you don't withdraw your competing bid for a government contract you certainly can choose to withdraw the bid. If Big Tony tells you 10% of your business kicks up to him, you can always refuse to pay it.

And sure, there are some people who deal with Big Tony voluntarily, just like there are some people who deal with the record companies voluntarily. But what about all of us who don't deal with the record companies voluntarily?

The point is, you shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to pay a record company for making a copy of a CD you own (and yes, you own the CD, you might not own the copyright on the CD, but you own the CD).

An extortionist involves you against your will but you can choose not to buy or listen to certain kinds of or all music.

I have chosen not to buy music from RIAA-affiliated artists. But that doesn't give them a right to dictate what I can or can't listen to. I shouldn't need anyone's permission to listen to something, just like I shouldn't need anyone's permission to bid on a government contract or run a pizza store.

There are other jobs dependent on copyright, for example almost the entire IT industry.

Actually, if copyright were abandoned the IT industry would probably boom. Sure, Microsoft might fail, but people still need software. Where there's a supply and a demand there will be a market, and getting rid of copyright isn't going to eliminate the supply or the demand.

The entire software, movie, music and writing industry would collapse if they couldn't prevent people from selling their software for the cost of a CDR or downloading it.

The industries would change, but they wouldn't collapse. The game software industry would probably be in trouble, at least for those games which couldn't adapt to online subscription versions. Windows would most likely die, and be replaced by Linux. There would be a lot of programmers getting paid to improve Linux, and a whole lot of people working in software support. Production in business applications would still be strong, but the workload would be much lighter, because there wouldn't be so much redundancy. So the rate of development would increase dramatically. Instead of being hired for a software company, programmers would be hired by the companies that use the software. They'd be there partly for support and integration, but while they weren't working on that they would be working on merging their changes in with the main project (to facilitate

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

Well, I specifically said the record companies, not the RIAA.

Yeah, I was too lazy to type out "record companies" :p.

And sure, there are some people who deal with Big Tony voluntarily, just like there are some people who deal with the record companies voluntarily. But what about all of us who don't deal with the record companies voluntarily?

You can decide not to pay Tony anything and he'll break your legs (or at least try to). You can decide not to deal with the RIAA (that includes not pirating their music, obviously you can't steal something out of a shop when you decide not to pay for it, either) and the RIAA will ignore you. You don't get their goods, they don't get your goods.

The point is, you shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to pay a record company for making a copy of a CD you own

In most jurisdictions you don't have to pay for that, unless you choose to distribute those copies which means you're competing with the rightsholder using his "reseach".

I have chosen not to buy music from RIAA-affiliated artists. But that doesn't give them a right to dictate what I can or can't listen to. I shouldn't need anyone's permission to listen to something, just like I shouldn't need anyone's permission to bid on a government contract or run a pizza store.

You can listen to what you want as long as it doesn't involve creating illegal copies of the media it's on. Use internet radio, that's completely legal.

Actually, if copyright were abandoned the IT industry would probably boom. Sure, Microsoft might fail, but people still need software. Where there's a supply and a demand there will be a market, and getting rid of copyright isn't going to eliminate the supply or the demand.

It reduces the profitability of making software, likely to the point where paying lots of programmers to write it is no longer feasible. It'll be mostly down to services then (i.e. you either pay someone because what you want doesn't exist yet or to set it up and maintain it).

The industries would change, but they wouldn't collapse. The game software industry would probably be in trouble, at least for those games which couldn't adapt to online subscription versions. Windows would most likely die, and be replaced by Linux. There would be a lot of programmers getting paid to improve Linux, and a whole lot of people working in software support. Production in business applications would still be strong, but the workload would be much lighter, because there wouldn't be so much redundancy. So the rate of development would increase dramatically. Instead of being hired for a software company, programmers would be hired by the companies that use the software. They'd be there partly for support and integration, but while they weren't working on that they would be working on merging their changes in with the main project (to facilitate updates) and creating new features and more efficient software. For some simple projects which aren't changing very much, they might have to move from job to job, or work for a consulting company. In the end, good software engineers have important skills which others don't have. There will be a market for them as long with copyright as without it. Maybe there won't be much shrinkwrap software, but there will still be software.

Remember, without the GPL there is no reason for anyone to contribute their stuff back into the main codetree so any improvements would be kept within the companies (it'd be pretty much the way BSD is now). Or do you want to abolish trade secrets and NDAs as well and nuke the entire research sector?

Also, without pressure from market demands the system wouldn't be very userfriendly (because there's noone paying for the development outside of large companies and those will only do what benefits them).

Depends what you mean by needed. We don't *need* singers or painters or film directors.

Needed as in "needed to maintain production leve

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

You can decide not to pay Tony anything and he'll break your legs (or at least try to). You can decide not to deal with the RIAA (that includes not pirating their music, obviously you can't steal something out of a shop when you decide not to pay for it, either) and the RIAA will ignore you. You don't get their goods, they don't get your goods.

The record companies don't sell goods, they sell rights. Copying something is not stealing.

"The point is, you shouldn't have to, just like you shouldn't have to pay a record company for making a copy of a CD you own"

In most jurisdictions you don't have to pay for that, unless you choose to distribute those copies which means you're competing with the rightsholder using his "reseach".

Well, it really depends on why you're making the copy as to whether or not you have to pay. But fine, let's say copying and distributing those copies. I shouldn't have to pay for that. I shouldn't have to pay for competing with the record companies just like I shouldn't have to pay for competing with Big Tony. Competition is essential in a free market.

It reduces the profitability of making software, likely to the point where paying lots of programmers to write it is no longer feasible.

I fail to see how this is the case.

It'll be mostly down to services then (i.e. you either pay someone because what you want doesn't exist yet or to set it up and maintain it).

In what way is "making software" not a "service"?

Remember, without the GPL there is no reason for anyone to contribute their stuff back into the main codetree

That's absolutely incorrect. There is at least one huge incentive to contribute back to the main codetree, and that is that it facilitates merging of changes made by other people. Maintaining a fork is hard, and it's not going to be done unless there are very good reasons for it. It's much easier to just send the diff to the project maintainers than it is to merge in their diffs every time they make them.

Alternatively, let me put it this way. The GPL doesn't require you to contribute your stuff back to the main codetree either.

it'd be pretty much the way BSD is now

With one major exception, a company couldn't take a piece of software, modify it, and copyright that derivative work. Sure, they wouldn't be required to release the source, but without the ability to sell shrinkwrapped software for more than the cost of the media that's not very useful. The source code clause of the GPL isn't the main thing that distinguishes it from the BSD license, the copyleft is. Things wouldn't be like the BSD licence or the GPL license, they'd be more like the Creative Commons ShareAlike license.

Or do you want to abolish trade secrets and NDAs as well and nuke the entire research sector?

I'd probably abolish trade secrets but not NDAs. Nuking the entire research sector would be a bad thing.

Also, without pressure from market demands the system wouldn't be very userfriendly (because there's noone paying for the development outside of large companies and those will only do what benefits them).

I don't see why it'd only be large companies, in fact I think small companies probably have more of a demand for software. But even if it is, why do you think that large companies don't demand user friendly products?

To supply a population of X with all the demanded goods, you need

I suggest you read up on Say's Law and the Broken Window Falacy. You might also want to look at In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell.

The error you're making is that you're treating demand as some finite property which can be satisfied. Furthermore, if global demand is satisfied, that means everyone has everything he or she wants. If we all have everything we want, who cares if we're un

Re:Why?

[anthony_dipierro]

Oops, missed one:

"But hey, if we're so efficient we're just begging for something to do, why not go down to New Orleans and help rebuild that city?"

Because I'm roughly on the other side of the planet and Bush declined the help my country offered.

I'm sure whatever your country is there's something that needs to be done, and something that you're capable of doing.

Stop right there.

[GreyWolf3000]

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.

Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal. Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights, and anyone would have to be blind not to understand why they feel this is in their best interest.

As the submitter conceded, they're making an example.

Re:Stop right there.

[Propagandhi]

They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal.

The RIAA doesn't care about the legality of file sharing, they care about making money. If file sharing actually made them money (as submitter is trying to suggest) then it would be a poor business practice to attempt to stop it.

Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights [...]

Only because Congress gave them that right, which is a little assinine to me. Why should some outmoded businesss model be kept alive via legislation? Bah humbug...

Re:Stop right there.

[tibike77]

How many people fileshare (DC, BT, eDonkey, etc) ?
Lots. Hundreds of millions, maybe.

How many of those fileshare (some) illegal "stuff" ?
Most of them, for sure. Even if it's only ONE music file that doesn't belong there, that's still illegal. Not necessarily imoral, but illegal.

Now, on to the "making some money" part...
IF (by some cosmic accident) it suddendly becomes LEGAL to share with the world everything you ever bought (or worse, everything you ever downloaded)... imagine how the number of sales would plummet. And I'm not talking "music", I'm talking about everything that's storable on digital media.

So it makes PERFECT bussiness sense to keep people SCARED of filesharing, and what better way to do that is than find some scapegoats ? The more "innocent" they look, the bigger the "scare factor".

So there you have it, a perfectly logical explanation. And the reason RIAA and their kind will never give up on this "witch-hunt".

Re:Stop right there.

[QuantumG]

Same reason drugs are illegal. The state no longer represents the will of the people.

Re:Stop right there.

[Propagandhi]

Absolutely, I agree. I just wanted to point out what the submitter was trying to illustrate. I have no doubt that the study submitter sited was biased toward whoever funded it (as most 'studies' seem to be).

At any rate, there are exceptions to your post. I for instance, have absolutely no fear of ever being punished for my file sharing, yet media (music and videogames, I don't watch movies) is pretty much my only entertainment expense. I still buy music, not because I fear the consequences of coming into it illegally, but because I respect and want to support the artists or developers who created said media.

Obviously, this will never work in a culture with such a hardon for so-called pure capitalism (although if taken literally that phrase could not be farther from the truth), but I thought I'd present my idealistic alternative...

Bottom line, if the music industry still produced art those who actually enjoyed said art would still pay for it. It's a business though, and most of what they produce is utter shit. I guess this is their only recourse if they want people to continue buying their shit. Nevermind the fact that such business through legislation goes against our capitalist ideals.

Re:Stop right there.

[shawn(at)fsu]

I agree.
But of course fiel sharers pay more. They pay about $3000 to settle out fo court.

Re:Stop right there.

[ScentCone]

The state no longer represents the will of the people.

So, the people that work for the RIAA, and the musicians that choose member labels to handle their business for them... those are not part of "the people?"

There was a time when a majority of "the people" thought slavery was cool, too. The "will of the people" at any given moment does not, and absolutely should not, translate into what the people should be legally able to do. That's what the Constitution is all about - allowing people, even the minority of the people (say, musicians) to preserve their rights despite what the majority would find convenient. Ownership of your own efforts is fundamental to our culture, even if a lazy, cheap, and larger portion of that culture would rather have pet musicians working for them for free.

Re:Stop right there.

[BigBuckHunter]

They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal.

While I was going to comment on the parent post's use of the word "steal" when referring to copyright infringment, I will instead take the time to comment on your use of "unlicensed". Perhaps you meant "distributing copies of music without a license", as there is no problem with distributing "unlicensed music". My songs are "unlicensed", yet anyone is free to listen, distribute, modify them as they see fit, just as with many other recorded performances out there.

BBH

Re:Stop right there.

[Propagandhi]

In defense of those artists that do end up with a major label there really isn't much of a choice if you want to support yourself in a reasonable way as a musician.

Sure, some indie bands make it big (The Arcade Fire is now on MTV 2, as well as a few others) but those bands are an exception. It's far easier to make it big on a major label, and who are we to blame them for doing it?

Sure, it means they have to support the RIAA's legal actions, but such is life.. it's either that or go teach High School band (there aren't a whole lot of options for music majors).

Re:Stop right there.

[tibike77]

I live in one of those high-piracy, low-income ex-communist countries.
As a kid/student (no income of my own), I could have counted on my hands the number of items in the music/software category I purchased. Books though, that was a different story... most of my allowance went downhill on book purchases.

Let's put it this way... if I would have had plenty of money, I would have bought back then everything in those categories that I might have liked. But I didn't (have the money, I mean).

Even today, being a lucky person and earning several times above the average wage, I still have resentments towards buying software I could not test beforehand (crippled demos don't count). And even then, if it's for something I feel it's overpriced for the features/entertainment value, I do have a lot of reservations towards the purchase.
I mean, heck, if a copy of Windows sells for DOUBLE the minimal MONTHLY wage in your country, you know something's very, very wrong.

I just buy the bare minimum and go to opensource/shareware for all the rest of the needs. Games ? Same there, most of the time... free online games, open betas, etc.
And songs ? I can't remember when was the last time I even went to a shop where they sold music (and if I was, I was checking out the software section anyway). Radio is where I listen to music.

Speaking of which... if I record a MP3 off the radio, is it legal or ilegal to listen to it ?
And is it legal to give that MP3 file to a friend ? Or get one such MP3 from a friend ?
Same with TV shows (heck, don't cut commercials out if that's a legal problem).

Now THAT is a good question :D

Re:Stop right there.

[QuantumG]

The constitution doesn't guarentee you the right to force other people to pay you if they want to hear your music. It allows for congress to enact laws that restrict the people's right to copy music but seeing as the majority of people have demonstrated that they have no respect for such laws they should be abolished. No culture makes the fundamental claim that you can force others to pay for your work. If it did the majority of work done would be unproductive as you wouldn't have to find anyone to voluntarily pay you to dig holes and fill them up again, you could just force people to do it. If musicians can't figure out a way to get people to voluntarily pay for their services then they should go do work which people will voluntarily pay them to do.

Re:Stop right there.

[QuantumG]

Am I supposed to cry? It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a sufer. It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a rock climber. It's really hard to support yourself in a reasonable way as a poet or a philosopher. Here's a crazy idea: don't.

Re:Stop right there.

[SilverspurG]

It allows for congress to enact laws that restrict the people's right

In general I've been agreeing with what you've been posting, but I must take issue with this.

The Constitution does not allow Congress to enact laws restricting the people's right to copy anything. The Constitution includes a clause which seeks to reserve, to the original authors and inventors, the exclusive rights to their respective works. Current copyright law does little more than define all the ways in which those rights can be, for lack of a better word, extorted from the original authors and inventors. There's almost nothing in modern copyright law which protects you as an author or inventor. In modern copyright law, your only protection as an author or inventor is to hope that you're independently wealthy so that you don't have to sign an all-encompassing IP agreement with your employer.

While the Constitution guarantees exclusive rights to you, as the original author or inventor, the courts and laws todays will never find in your favor should you have a battle with your employer over who owns the IP which you created.

Re:Stop right there.

[Oligonicella]

You post is based on the premise that someone is forcing you to buy music. This is false

No culture makes the fundamental claim that you can force others to pay for your work.

No, but every culture that outlaws slavery prevents you from forcing them to work for free.

If musicians can't figure out a way to get people to voluntarily pay for their services then they should go do work which people will voluntarily pay them to do.

Musicians have indeed figured that one out. You voluntarily pay for the music CD. No one, absolutly no one, forces you to buy music. You're just cheesed at those that want you to provide them something (money) in return.

Just why is it that you don't want to pay someone for their hard work?

Re:Stop right there.

[QuantumG]

Let's not forget the rest of Clause 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Always seemed to me that Britney Spears songs and Arnold Schwarzenegger films was not what the founding fathers had in mind. Not to mention limited != ever increasing.

Re:Stop right there.

[_Sprocket_]

Now, on to the "making some money" part...
IF (by some cosmic accident) it suddendly becomes LEGAL to share with the world everything you ever bought (or worse, everything you ever downloaded)... imagine how the number of sales would plummet. And I'm not talking "music", I'm talking about everything that's storable on digital media.

Sharing illicit data, and specifically illegal copies of music, has been ongoing for years. But it had mostly been limited to a small set of technical users. Then came Napster. Napster opened up ability to share illegal copies of music to the masses. And what's more, it would seem that many were completely unaware that it was illegal to do so. At the least, few were concerned about being caught so the legality of their actions wasn't really a factor. What was going on with music sales during that time period? Record highs.

The genie is out of the bottle. The very demographics that the music industry targets with gusto continue to trade in illicit data. Yet they continue to buy - abliet not at the record levels enjoyed during Napster's hay-day.

It might be worth noting that this is all old hat. In past decades, Industry representatives anguished over other emerging technology. Each device was a doomsday - the radio, the cassette tape, the CD Writer.... Napster. Yet the music industry still stands.

Granted... times are changing.

Music has always been data. It's just that our technology caused us to focus rather heavily on the media that data came on. Which makes sense since it's a rather advanced concept to pay for something you can't touch. But things have changed. The music Industry needs to change too.

How do you compete with the illegal copies that don't have the same costs? The Music Industry knows how to do it - they've done it successfully in countries that do not recognize copyright. The answer is quality.

Napster and other fileshare systems have a major problem. Quality. Many rips are junk - bad copies riped by inexperienced amatures. Furthermore, you have no guarantee you'll be getting the file you wanted since the bandwidth involved is provided at the kindness of strangers. Imagine if you could go to a source and pay a nominal fee for guaranteed quality and bandwidth.

Sounds like iTunes.

Apple has done far more towards keeping music fans in the fold than RIAA's lawyers will ever manage. Now there's good business sense.

Re:Stop right there.

[SilverspurG]

You voluntarily pay for the music CD.

And they voluntarily sell the CD. No one forces them to sell that CD to every 10-year old with $15. Everyone knows that the medium is easily copied.

It's no better than leaving the keys in the lock on the outside of your car in the middle of New York in rush hour and then acting surprised when you come back two months later to find that someone took the car. What did you expect to happen?

When is the media industry going to be held up to the same reality as the rest of the world?

Re:Stop right there.

[QuantumG]

The whole point of the article is that you are forced to pay for the song as you legally can't get it from anyone else. If you don't think that is "force" ask the people who have had criminal charges brought against them for copyright infringement. If I go to an artist and ask them for a song, I expect them to charge me.. but I then expect to be free to do with that work as I please - I've paid for it. If that means I want to resell it for less than the artist then that's my right. Copyright law prohibits me from doing that, and it does it by the force of law. We used to accept this in our society because so few of us had the means to copy things. Now we all do and rather than stand up and demand that we be given back our right to copy we acted like criminals and copied in the shadows. Now the law says we are criminals (and after acting like such, what did we expect?) and we're royally fucked.

For those who consider the slippery slope a fallacy of logic, I give you copyright law.

Re:Stop right there.

[stewby18]

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.

Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. [...] Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases

And perhaps the RIAA has a better grasp of the difference between correlation and cause-and-effect than the media that reported on the study.

Re:Stop right there.

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA doesn't care about the legality of file sharing, they care about making money.

Really? The RIAA just cares about making money? Why are they a non-profit organization then? One of the main goals of the RIAA is to "protect the intellectual property rights" of its member companies. Making money is not a goal at all.

Re:Stop right there.

[antiMStroll]

Not to sound harsh, but who cares what RIAA members think? The reason for granting them legal protection in the form of extended copyright (a very recent development) is demonstrable harm. If file sharing causes no harm, in fact benefits them, the laws are unjust and the wishes of this miniscule minority irrelevant.

Incidentally, the present RIAA 'rights' you mention are not to be confused with what people generally consider rights - to free speech, pursuit of happiness, etc.. There is no natural right to sell trivialy replicable items and force the remaining overwhelming majority of society to not do so by means of federal prosecution. It's instead a gross distortion of copyright's original intent bought and paid for through decades of campaign financing and lobbying.

Re:Stop right there.

[mpe]

Only because Congress gave them that right, which is a little assinine to me. Why should some outmoded businesss model be kept alive via legislation? Bah humbug...

They wern't so much given the right as bought the right through lobbying probably some bribary too. If they didn't then use that right they'd look like fools, which to some of the prople involved is probably a worst fate than losing money.

Re:Stop right there.

[ScouseMouse]

That appears to be a fantastic argument for DRM on music.

I assume that is also not an acceptable solution?

Actually option C is that they dont sell anything at all. Not sure this would fix things either, but feel free to discuss.

Re:Stop right there.

[tod_miller]

Yeah, also, in true form of stats, I am guessing it is more the fact that online music purchasers also share music, rather than music sharers also buy music.

i.e. a greater percentage of online music buyers share music than the percentage of music sharers that buy music.

The motivation is that an online buyer also looks for other music, not vice versa.

Anyway.

Re:Stop right there.

[GoldAnt]

Well, if they don't make examples out of people... why do we need them? After all, they've got to keep their petty jobs somehow ;)

Re:Stop right there.

[Random832]

Tell me more about this "in their best interest" that applies to suing a demographic that [assuming such studies which you have not disputed are true] accounts for proportionally more of their sales than the general public - It sounds like they're the ones who are blind. Particularly if there is a causative relationship.

Re:Stop right there.

[squiggleslash]

If file sharing actually made them money (as submitter is trying to suggest) then it would be a poor business practice to attempt to stop it.

But it doesn't really make them money now, does it? The submitter's wrong, and made an elementary mistake of statistics reasoning that would normally be jumped upon if anyone made it about any other subject here.

The study pointed to does NOT claim that people who use P2P networks will subsequently buy more music as a result of doing so. It merely claims that people who heavily use P2P also buy music heavily. Corrolation does not imply cause.

The most probable reason why someone would buy a lot of music and use a P2P system heavily is that they like music. They like music so they get more of it from more sources. That's it. It's that simple. It's so obvious, that you have to question the reasoning skills of anyone who thinks the two are linked by causation. Everyone these days is trying to find stupid reasons to think one thing causes another.

While P2P probably provides some degree of "try before you buy", it's equally true that legal mechanisms to do much the same thing are widely available, from friends introducing friends to new acts, to samples downloadable from band websites, those little headphone and barcode readers you get in most record stores, and even, to some extent, radio and television. So it's hard to see how P2P helps content producers. In practice, I suspect the number of cheap-asses like certain people I know who download music with the specific intention of burning it to CD and saving themselves money more than outwieghs the High Minded Slashdotter Who Would Only Ever Download Music To Try It and Will Buy The CD If It's Good.

Please, let's stop pretending the study the submitter linked to in any way justifies music piracy. It doesn't. It never did. Indeed, it may well be it does the opposite, showing that people across the spectrum of music appreciation are willing to use P2P as a substitute for at least some of their music purchases. Content producers have every reason to be concerned about those trading files on the Internet.

Re:Stop right there.

[ClioCJS]

In 1850, it would be within my writes to whip my black slave.

Does that make it right?

Saying that because something is legal it is okay is assinine. Morality and legality have little to do with each other. Just ask the Taliban.

Re:Stop right there.

[Evil Adrian]

Somebody call the spelling police, homicide division. This post is a massacre.

Re:Stop right there.

[Anonymous Coward]

"They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal."

Hmmm. I know the RIAA loves folks like you, but I'm still not so sure about your use of the word "illegal". Maybe a license violation by whoever originally made the purchase and agreed to such ridiculous terms, but not everyone who shares a certain file may have actually made an agreement with them in the first place.

Re:Stop right there.

[nurb432]

In 1850, yes it was considered 'right'. In 2005 its considered 'wrong'.

The concept of 'right and wrong' changes over time.

Re:Stop right there.

[ClioCJS]

Precisely my point, thank you.

The people running the underground railroad were criminals. And yet heroes at the same time. Not that I'm necessarily trying to draw an analogy here.

Re:Stop right there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has done far more towards keeping music fans in the fold than RIAA's lawyers will ever manage. Now there's good business sense.

Of course, the irony comes from the fact those RIAA companies are also doing their best to upset Apple's iTunes service by demanding to be allowed to charge higher fees, and publically lamenting about how only iTMS is compatible with iPods (and vice versa). Guess it's unusual for them to have terms dictated to them rather than vice versa.

What a strange situation. A near-monopoly (Apple) that is actually keeping prices low by dictating terms to the upstream monopolies (RIAA member companies).

Re:Stop right there.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were truly trying to make an example, as you say, wouldn't they actually go to court with at least one case? ONE??? Until then, they are just bullies making a quick dime off of people too afraid to challenge them.

Re:Stop right there.

[Macadamizer]

Please. You are not forced. You won't go to jail if you don't purchase a particular CD or song. Really, really wanting something and being forced to buy something (under threat of force or under law) are totally different concepts. Just because you can't possibly live without a CD or song does not mean that you were somehow forced to buy the song.

The whole point of the article is that you are forced to pay for the song as you legally can't get it from anyone else.

This is where you blew it -- you missed the third alternative -- don't buy the song or CD at all in the first place.

Re:Stop right there.

[mpe]

The state no longer represents the will of the people.

Or for that matter the interests of the people.

Re:Stop right there.

[mpe]

Let's not forget the rest of Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Whereas currently laws exist which appear to have the effect of impeding said progress.

Always seemed to me that Britney Spears songs and Arnold Schwarzenegger films was not what the founding fathers had in mind.

Wonder what thety would have though about The Internet or "fanfiction".

Not to mention limited != ever increasing.

Once a copyright term is longer than the average human lifespan it's may as well be unlimited for all practical purposes.

Re:Stop right there.

[mpe]

If I go to an artist and ask them for a song, I expect them to charge me.. but I then expect to be free to do with that work as I please - I've paid for it.

Remember that the vast majority of artists never expect their art to be their main income.

We used to accept this in our society because so few of us had the means to copy things.

There are a couple of other changes which have happened in recent decades. One is the loosening of the coupling between content and media. The other is the ability to copy content trivially on a one at a time basis.
Copyright originally came into being when the only way to cheaply duplicate content was through a third party publisher.

Re:Stop right there.

[mpe]

The RIAA just cares about making money? Why are they a non-profit organization then? One of the main goals of the RIAA is to "protect the intellectual property rights" of its member companies.

This also means that the member companies are protected from being counter sued.

I have never bought a CD in my life

[Anonymous Coward]

"customers"? Shouldn't it read potential customers?

Re:I have never bought a CD in my life

[gerf]

Nah. Heck, the way they've been going, I bet half the people on the list are from New Orleans.

LOL

[John Seminal]

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all

Not any more, not after the ridiculous penalties.

BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Ofcourse they lose money due to music sharers AKA piraters. It results in more people going to download a song for free rather than going to the local music store to purchase the CD.

Re:LOL

[FireFlie]

How much is exactly one song worth when shared?"

Are you saying that it is alright to pirate music then? Is it also ok to steal cable television? What have they lost? Potential revenue. Yes, I know this is not exact, but I think that it is a start. There does exist a person who asks "Why would I buy a cd that I just downloaded?". I have encountered many who feel that way personally.

Oh yea, if you were actually looking for an answer to your origional question, itunes charges .99, I think that may be a start.

Re:LOL

[laughingcoyote]

Did you read the study? Or are you trolling?

Well, this particular one deserves an answer regardless, so here it is.

It doesn't necessarily lead to that. It may lead to a prospective customer discovering an unknown band (whose CD they never would've bought or even considered without being able to download risk-free samples), falling in love, buying that band's CD's, T-shirts, and attending their concerts. A nice windfall for the band, AND for the consumer-neither would've known the other existed but for filesharing.

Of course any system will have freeloaders, that want to get out of paying for anything, ever. These are the same people that were borrowing or copying tapes from their friends nonstop. That's been happening for decades, and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

Re:LOL

[shark72]

"BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm."

An interesting question, but not relevant here. The RIAA tends to target the "whales" of file sharing who have thousands of songs in their share directories. They do so for exactly the reason you allude to: it's much easier to show potential damage than, say, suing the fellow who's shared just one song.

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

Are you saying that it is alright to pirate music then?

Wow, do you think you can ask a more loaded question? Can I ask you one then? Are you saying that it is alright to enact laws that the majority of people don't want? Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government.

Re:LOL

[SilverspurG]

alright to pirate music then

It's hardly pirating music when the media company freely sold the media to the consumer.

Is it also ok to steal cable television?

I feel no pity for media companies anymore. If they're worried about people stealing cable television, how about deactivating the wires carrying the signal? If they can't secure their product on the front end that is THEIR problem, not mine. Would you feel sorry for a car dealership which left the keys in the door locks of all its cars, overnight, every night, for a year?

Re:LOL

[FireFlie]

Great logic. And without laws to protect the work that people do, we would not have any media to copyright, nor would we have new drugs because no one would be able to make money off them.

"Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government."

Either you lack any ambition to do anything worth stealing, or you are so full of your utopian society that you cannot fathom reality. Either way you lose.

Re:LOL

[JorDan Clock]

But the problem is, the study doesn't take CD's into consideration. Only illegal sharing and legal downloading.

I'm not saying your logic is incorrect (or correct) but reading the "study" shows that it's not quite as general as the submitter believes.

Re:LOL

[laughingcoyote]

Your point is valid. However, CD's are the "old" medium, just as cassette tapes and records were decades ago, and will be naturally phased out in favor of the new-digital distribution. That will happen over a period of years, after all, people still own vinyl records! But very few seek to buy them anymore, and they are certainly not the source of anyone's profits. Cassette tapes still can be purchased, but again, are not the source of profits.

In the meantime, sure, CD's might remain a profit source, but ultimately a dwindling one. It's certainly not unnatural to see people not want to pay $15-$20 for a CD when they can burn their own (minus the songs they dislike, with whatever tracks they choose) for 15 cents or so. The only choice the "content providers" have now is clear-embrace digital distribution, the way the consumers want it, or go under. Every business has to serve the wants and desires of their consumers, those who have tried to have those desires legislated away are inevitably a footnote.

Re:LOL

[ShieldW0lf]

Are you saying that it is alright to pirate music then? Is it also ok to steal cable television?

Copyright, and for that matter intellectual property law in all its forms are obsolete. They cause harm to society. Therefore, it goes beyond "alright". You have a moral obligation to pirate music and steal cable rather than paying for it, because if you do pay for it, you're a contributing factor in the harm that it does.

How does it cause harm? Well, it goes like this:

As time goes on, the number of people in the world increases. Due to societal advancements, their education levels also increase. And they have more free time than before, or they should. And they have wider access to the creative tools that used to only be available for professionals.

So the number of creators in the world increases, and the number of creative works in existance dramatically and continually increases. And the cost of distribution of those works shrinks ever closer to zero.

But here's the kicker: the price of creative works keeps up with inflation. People now cannot legally afford to own much more than they could in the early 80s. Books and CDs are not much different in price than books and tapes were back then, once you take inflation into account.

So the wealth of knowledge and art grows and grows and grows, but the size of the chunk of it that you get to expose yourself to does not. From a relative standpoint, it shrinks as time goes on.

Intellectual property laws and copyright laws make us less knowledgable, cultured and informed by their existance. They do not enrich our society, they impoverish it.

We are very near the point, from a technological standpoint, where it would be cheaper to deliver a copy of every intellectual work, every song, every movie, every book, all of it, to every single man woman and child on the face of the earth than it would be to deliver each of them a slice of bread.

Think about that... the library of alexandria in the hands of everyone on earth, using the 3D holographic storage that IBM is developing, or something of that ilk and a cheap reader device. This is no longer some hippie pipe dream, this is something we can practically achieve.

Can you really argue in defense of a system that would prevent such a thing from happening?

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

Way to dodge the issue. If you don't believe that laws should represent the will of the people then you should leave your democratic country right now and go find a nice dictator to live under.

Re:LOL

[FireFlie]

I do believe that laws should represent the will of the people, however what you are failing to realize is that the government is not only supposed to represent the will of the majority, but also protect the rights of the minority. I am quite happy where I am, thank you.

Re:LOL

[SilverspurG]

When >95% of the financial resources in this nation are controlled by 5% of the population, it's quite easy to see which minority the government is protecting.

Don't you think?

Re:LOL

[FireFlie]

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but I'll bite anyway. Yes, because you are saying that we should not respect peoples rights to create, and to own what they create. I am in favor of your utopian dream, but not if it means a.) breaking laws and b.) disrespecting the people who create. The ends do not justify the means. You keep feeling that it is not only your right, but you duty to take free cable, music, movies, etc., then feel free, but I hope you are also willing to own up to the consequences if you get caught.

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

protect the inalienable rights of the minority. Not the artificial government issued rights. Those the government is supposed to repeal as soon as the majority find them intolerable. Copyright is largely ignored by the majority and when they get sued for violations it's largely intolerable. If any significant number of these cases actually went to court the system would soon right itself. But the court fee system is currently structured so that it's cheaper just to settle. And so the RIAA gets can opportunity to "re-educate" the public.

Re:LOL

[apoc.famine]

As a good example of this, I stopped regularly buying CDs in the late 90s, as they neared the $20 mark. Since about 2000, I have purchased a grand total of 3 CDs. One of these CDs was a new release from a band I was (formally) a big fan of, and I own most of their other CDs.

But the other two are the interesting ones - a friend uploaded me a bunch of mp3s during a lan party a few years ago. In this mix were two non-mainstream bands, Opeth and Soilwork. You can't hear them on the radio, and it's only been in the last few years that they have begun to show up in the US. (at Ozzfest)

I now own CDs from both these bands, and am considering more. But I already have the music on my computer - nicely infringed. Why would I buy more of their CDs?

*Audio quality - I can rip at the bitrate I want my music ripped at
*Album art
*To support two kickass bands which aren't trying to sound like all the rest of the music played on mainstream radio stations.

Since I missed the last few Ozzfests, and they don't get radio airtime, would I ever have found these bands otherwise? No. If it wasn't for my infringing friend (who also has started buying their albums) neither of us would have ever heard of these bands, nor dropped any money on their cds.

Infringement can be one kickass tool for exposure, and that's the part I wish the *AAs would get through their thick skulls. Why waste a zillion dollars advertising and paying off DJs, when you can release 1/3 the songs on a P2P network, and let people drive up business through word of mouth&file sharing? Even if you can't do this for your top-tier artists, there are plenty of new artists you could "test out" like this for very little money.

Re:LOL

[apoc.famine]

Oh, that's right - their artists suck ass, and need to be crammed into people's faces. Sorry for asking such a stupid question.

Note: The above scenario only works for artists with talent that people actually choose to listen to.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wow, do you think you can ask a more loaded question? Can I ask you one then? Are you saying that it is alright to enact laws that the majority of people don't want? Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government."

Wrong.

The majority of people want copyright. (Mostly because they don't understand the dangers of Mickey Mouse being held by Disney for eternity.)

The majority of people want 'The WAR on DRUGZZZZz!!!!!!111111111'. Damn druggies, always burgling and killing and causing car accidents and corrupting our youth and...

The majority of people *you* yourself know, might not want either. Too bad - you still lose, thanks to the defeat of the Confederate armies in the Civil War. (Ya know, where we all got together and decided to duke it out over the ideas that 'Lincoln can't tell us what to do!' vs. 'Lincoln can tell us what to do!')

Federal Law trumps State Law trumps Local Law. You might not like the law. Your friends might not like the law. Your entire city might not like the law.

But yer screwed, because your majority is, in the grand scheme of things, a minority.

Re:LOL

[thefirelane]

Are you saying that it is alright to enact laws that the majority of people don't want?

I am... Democracy is not mob rule! You logic can be applied to civil rights just as easily... why should minorities have the right to vote if most people don't want them to?
Copyright and drugs laws: the perfect examples of people being ruled instead of represented by their government.

Copyright is a good example of the government defending the rights of the individual against the desire of the masses to simply take. It isn't comparable to the war on drugs.

Re:LOL

[YrWrstNtmr]

The music industry may not have lost, because you "wouldn't have bought it anyway". But how much have you gained, for nothing, from getting that free (or thousands of free) songs?

If you think the RIAA is underhanded (and they are!), then don't support their products. Period. Free or otherwise.

"I think Nike is really underhanded and dirty with their sweatshops, but look! Someone gave me a free pair of Air Stallmans! Don't they look nice on me?"

Just stop, and admit you like getting music for free.

Re:LOL

[u-235-sentinel]

If you don't believe that laws should represent the will of the people then you should leave your democratic country right now and go find a nice dictator to live under

He better hurry... he's running out of dictators to choose with the war on terror.

Sorry... couldn't resist :-)

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages?

Exactly. This is why there are specific laws for such offenses related to 'intellectual property', because the established principals of real property common/stautory law can't reasonably apply.

These laws amount to a corporate privledge, because they are mostly if not entirely pointless to the natural person.

So these laws are not about protecting society, but protecting a business market. Old world ultra-statist socialism. Not a new idea. Just in this country the standing lie is that doesn't happen here.

Re:LOL

[Fluffy_Kitten]

But they don't know that they DIDN'T suffer damages, they THINK that filesharing causes damage, but... since, it's been like this forever...

Re:LOL

[FidelCatsro]

Did they ever intend on purchasing the product in question ?

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

Just stop, and admit you like getting music for free.

Wow, you say that like it's a big revelation. Everyone likes getting something for nothing. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

Sorry, what? How can you suggest that people should have the right to "own" a song? Every time I whistle it I should give them a penny should I? There's no natural right here. The debate is over whether or not the copyright system adequately encourages artists to produce. It does. If the copyright system were less lax then would it continue to? I say yes, you might say no. But we're not talking here about whether or not people should be able to own ideas.. that argument is over (and has been for centuries).

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

If you trip in front of my house, it's your own fault for being a clumsy oaf. If you were hurt and tried to sue me because you were too incompetent to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time, I'd probably have to go throw myself down your sidewalk then sue your ass into oblivion to give you a taste of your own medicine.

Re:LOL

[Tim C]

Surely it is an inalienable right to attempt to profit from your labours. If there is no copyright, and copying of electronic media is essentially effortless and free, how then do content creators profit from their labours?

Sure, bands can tour (although that can take a large initial investment), but what of authors? Merely being good with words doesn't make you a good public speaker, so they can't all give public readings or speak at functions.

Yes, of course some people will continue to produce such things in their spare time, and a very lucky few may even be sponsored by the wealthy "elite", but what of the rest?

Personally, I'm happy to accept reasonable copyright laws if it means that more people have the chance to follow their dream. No, they won't all be successful, but more will be with copyright laws than without, I think. Increasing the amount of content available as a whole can only be a good thing.

(Note that I said "reasonable copyright laws"; the current extensions are not reasonable, but I think it unwise tosimply scrap the whole system because the legislators have allowed it to be warped by a few self-interested parties)

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

Surely it is an inalienable right to attempt to profit from your labours.

Jesus, no it isn't. If I dig holes all day it doesn't mean I have an inalienable right to profit from it. What's the missing factor here? That's right, someone who is willing to pay me!

If there is no copyright, and copying of electronic media is essentially effortless and free, how then do content creators profit from their labours?

The same way everyone else does, by entering into contracts of mutual agreement. Ya know, the honest way to make money.

Surfers would like to surf all day. Some surfers manage to get people to sponsor them. Most surfers do not. To suggest that surfers should be able to force people to pay them to surf is rediculous.. regardless of how you manage to package up their skill. If they can find someone who is willing to pay them, then all the more power to them.

How is music any different?

Re:LOL

[Mr. Flibble]

It may lead to a prospective customer discovering an unknown band (whose CD they never would've bought or even considered without being able to download risk-free samples), falling in love, buying that band's CD's, T-shirts, and attending their concerts. A nice windfall for the band, AND for the consumer-neither would've known the other existed but for filesharing.

Very good point. I like industrial/dance style music. You can never find this stuff on the radio where I live, and Detroit Industrial Underground is about the only streaming radio station that carries a good selection...

I was searching for some Front 242, and I saw this track called "Front 242 - God is God - Godzilla Remix by Juno Reactor" I downloaded it. I liked it. Then I started finding out about Juno Reactor. I then found a Juno Reactor remix by a group called "Gravity Kills" and I started looking their stuff up. By looking up these remixes I managed to find a number of bands that I previously would not have found - indeed, the only way I could have found some of them prior was to have purchased the ENTIRE collection of CD's by the industrial artists I like - including the CD's that are not for sale, and never have been for sale in my country.

This process has helped me to discover a great selection of industrial bands I had never heard of before. (Given that the RIAA never seems to promote them anyways. Shame that the latest KMFDM album is a RIAA sanctioned album though - yes, I paid for it)

Re:LOL

[Jim_Callahan]

Yes, yes it is. In fact, ensuring that the majority never gain complete control of the system just becuse they are the majority was pretty much the entire point of that whole 'constitution' thing everyone makes so much fuss about. If we wanted rule by majority, the constitution would have been a one-liner: "vote on it". Ideally, people in the US are ruled by their laws, which compel them to behave in a way that makes the society run correctly. In practice, this blends a bit into people being ruled by government, but the people making up the government being subject to the same laws goes a long way to ensuring that it is, in fact, rule of law and not majority tyrrany that decides what's what. Damn good thing, too, or biology would be screwed by a mandated ban on teaching evolution in public schools and we'd be legally banning every political sect that offended majority sentiments, just like europe. In fact, independent music would probqbly be dead, too, as the majority of people would add legal force to those stupid pop idol television crapfests.

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

Which is why the constitution made it optional for congress to make copyright laws. There's nothing in the constitution that requires copyright.

Re:LOL

[Zunni]

Or more likely (because of the convenience of the situation and the fact that they are obviously already familiar with the methods to accomplish this), simply downloading the CD's in question.

On a side note, how does this finding 'new bands' thing work anyway, type random words or spelling mistakes into Kazaa and poof new band is found?

The vast majority of people search for Britney Spears or Beastie Boys, not Random Band name. It's a fine arguement to use in theory and I'm sure someone will reply and talk about how they found Band X through a similar method and bought all 30 of their CD's (6 copies of each in fact) but realistically all this has ever been is a way for someone to download the latest top 40 hits without buying the album, justify it all you want (RIAA is evil, CD's are too expensive, only 1 good song per album etc etc), you are downloading an album that you didn't pay for. Period.

And for those people who are saying "Well we are only doing this because we have no viable alternative", that argument was made moot the day ITunes.com and Napster were released. At this point there are viable alternatives, and yet music piracy is still a HUGE business... As time goes on, if those methods prove to be profitable (as people say they will be), then more and better methods will be served.

Re:LOL

[mmeister]

Agreed.

Our politicians (like Mr. Hatch) are so corrupted and in the pockets of mega-corporations and we, the people, are easily put of for commercial slaughter.

I refuse to allow myself to encourage being treated as a criminal by RIAA. My music purchases are at an absolute minimum, partially due to the lack of anything really good out there -- but mainly because I don't want to put any more money into a system that treats me with such disregard.

Perhaps when RIAA sheds its dinosaur paradigm and moves into the 21st Century (and doesn't just promote bubblegum radio music) -- then they'll get some of my hard earned money again.

I'm sure they'll blame file sharing for any boycott-based decline as well (they are quite delusional), but we have to stop feeding the monster.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

sometimes the majority are dorks. the majority of people want beer to be free. not a great plan for the people who make beer though is it? and within 6 months, nobody would have any beer.
there have to be rewards for creating digital content. or do you think people making creative stuff should be poor and homeless, so that you get to have a ncie music collection?

Re:LOL

[Nugget]

Now you're just back to banging your head against the "force" issue. The difference with music is that there's a clear and established body of people who are willing to pay for music. A subset of those people, though, are also willing to obtain the music through illicit means because it's unlikely that they will be caught and penalized for doing so.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

"A nice windfall for the band"... NOT bloody likely. More like a windfall, if there is one, for the fat bastards who 0wn them and their art(the record co.).

Re:LOL

[smyle]

>> Surely it is an inalienable right to attempt to profit from your labours.

> Jesus, no it isn't. If I dig holes all day it doesn't mean I have an inalienable right to profit from it.

Way to twist words there
Original quote "...right to attempt to profit"
Your quote "...right to profit"

Way to completely miss the point.

Re:LOL

[Random832]

Except that copyright is an artificial right, not a natural one.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Words spoken from someone who is bitter that they will never be in that 5%. The problem here is you need to work to be in control of those same resources. You don't like free market? Move to another country. There still exist communist and socialist governments out there that will gladly take the right to be wealthy away from everyone under them, including you.

Liberals are a pathetic waste of time. +2 insightful? Only on slashdot --news for those that can't think for themselves.

Re:LOL

[Technician]

It doesn't necessarily lead to that. It may lead to a prospective customer discovering an unknown band (whose CD they never would've bought or even considered without being able to download risk-free samples), falling in love, buying that band's CD's, T-shirts, and attending their concerts. A nice windfall for the band, AND for the consumer-neither would've known the other existed but for filesharing.

You are already modded up to +5. I have mod points, but I'll comment instead. I bought most of my music in my early 20's. I was in the Navy and living in the enlisted dorm. It was my heaviest piracy days in the 1970's. Lots of LP's were copied to tape. That is also the time I bought the most LP's. I became introduced to the bands of Pink Floyd, Styx, ELO, and others and bought LP's. Without the dorm sharing, I would never have bought from these bands.

Re:LOL

[endoboy]

Having bought two CDs in the last five years is not exactly a great example of the market power that can be unleashed by "sharing" music...

You might want to reconsider your premise.

Re:LOL

[mpe]

Surely it is an inalienable right to attempt to profit from your labours.

The simple answer is no. There also certainly isn't any kind of right to profit from work you did years ago...

If there is no copyright, and copying of electronic media is essentially effortless and free, how then do content creators profit from their labours?

They can do what everyone else does, get a job or draw an income from investmets/pension fund. If their work is highly in demand they might accept commisions or sponsorship.
Storys, poems, songs, etc all existed before copyright existed and when copyright conditions were much more modest.

Re:LOL

[mpe]

There's no natural right here. The debate is over whether or not the copyright system adequately encourages artists to produce. It does.

How do you conclude this? You'd first need to know what the level of production without any copyright laws and current technology.
It's an equally valid hypothesis that artists are continuing to produce, dispite, current copyright laws.

Re:LOL

[mpe]

Exactly. This is why there are specific laws for such offenses related to 'intellectual property', because the established principals of real property common/stautory law can't reasonably apply.

To the point where sanctions for misusing this fictional property are more extreme than misusing real property.

These laws amount to a corporate privledge, because they are mostly if not entirely pointless to the natural person.

Or unusable by a natural person. Are there any cases of individuals taking out these kind of suits against corporates?

Re:LOL

[apoc.famine]

If it were just me alone, no, no it wouldn't be a good example. But when a million people buy an extra CD that they normally wouldn't have purchased, it is a big deal. I'd love to see a study on the p2p effect done on a large scale, and done well. I doubt that I'm the only person who's purchased a few extra CDs due to this sort of band exposure. Had I not gotten the mp3s, I wouldn't have purchased those CDs.

If the music industry can get a few million more people to buy this way, it'd be a pretty smart business move. Much smarter than, say, suing your customers.

Re:LOL

[endoboy]

a few million people buying a couple extra CDs because of MP3s doesn't make sense as a business model--a single Brittany album sells more than that.

Study or not, your math doesn't even come close to adding up.

Re:LOL

[ShieldW0lf]

Increasing the number of creative works available to humanity by motivating and supporting artists and intellectuals is a lofty goal, and I'm in favour of it. But not if it means cutting myself and everyone else out there off from 98% of those works and only allowing them access to the 2% that they could personally afford to fund. The ends do not justify the means.

Re:LOL

[YrWrstNtmr]

Everyone likes getting something for nothing. There's nothing wrong with that.

So people should make their life's work available to you for free? Have you gone to your boss with this revelation? I'm sure he'd love to have you come in everyday and do whatever it is you do, and not have to pay you.

Everybody likes it. Doesn't mean it's right.

Re:LOL

[QuantumG]

If people want to give stuff away for free then there is nothing wrong with taking it. If they don't want to give it away for free then they shouldn't. There are people who spend a lifetime making sculptures that no-one likes. Doesn't mean we have to support them. If you can't find an honest, voluntary, way to make money from your art, get a real job. Copyright isn't voluntary, it's the butt of a gun.

Re:LOL

[apoc.famine]

You are indeed correct - however, I'm not talking (or at least thinking) about Brittany, or any of the other huge stars of the modern media. I'm talking about all those little groups, for whom a million CDs would be a huge deal.

For a grand price of nearly free, a Label could slap a half-album of moderate-bitrate mp3s into the p2p world. If nobody cared, that no-name group and label would be out nothing. If a million people did, they would sell a ton more CDs than they were going to before this exposure.

You are right - it will never compare to the big money makers - and that's why it will never happen. But if some of the minor labels (assuming there are any left now) did this, they could potentially expose obscure artists to people who might be interested. For very, very little money or effort.

Re:LOL

[endoboy]

the problem, at least from the RIAA's perspective, comes when the folks who are "sharing" the sampler MP3s of Slimy Joe & the Horn Toed Lizards decide that "what the heck, maybe I should 'share' Brittany's album too"--the extra $20k that BigMusicCompany makes from Slimy Joe doesn't even come close to making up for the $20million that they didn't make on the Brittany album--which is why they're suing people.

ps--I kind of like SJ&THTL as the name for a C&W band--consider it copyrighted. Use it and I'll sue your ass!

Re:LOL

[le_defaut_tragique]

If it's going to be a tool for exposure, don't call it infringement. There are lots of indie artists out there who would love to just be *heard*- making a dime and even breaking even on the large initial investment in recording, producing, printing, and distributing a CD. I run a little tiny indie label that records and organizes local artists in my area. It's not big and it doesn't make money but it helps out some cool people making some cool music that probably couldn't score a record deal otherwise. I've spent a large amount of money on equipment and invested a large amount of my time in creating and producing music and, without the Internet serving as my primary distribution network (other than selling the occasional CD at a release party or a show) has gotten myself and some of my friends much more attention than we would have gotten otherwise.

Bottom line is, it's only infringement on copyright if the owner of the copyrighted work says it is. If you want to download/take/burn/distribute my music worldwide, then awesome. That's exposure for me. The RIAA doesn't want people listening to their music because they have a pure profit motive? Sucks to be them. The RIAA is irrelevant to say the least. That doesn't give us the right to trade their music if they don't want us to, and it is (as other posters have noticed) well within their rights as rightsholders to do so. The cool part of it is that their attitude towards music fans might turn off so many people that they start going underground to listen to acts who don't treat their fans like shit.

Democracy in action. It's a beautiful thing, ain't it?

Re:LOL

[MaTriXxx1]

<insanity>
        <rant>

I think the RIAA has missed out on a FAR better lawsuit, Instead of suing people who at best can drop a few grand in court.... why not go after the big evil doers! you see... radio stations have a contract to only play the musc x times, and in x range... BUT! all the aliens in outer space, THOSE should be the targets, I mean seriusly... a person shares music, maybe 3000 people will get that song, within a a few months itll be done and overwith... but with radio waves.... trillions of other life forms can listen to it for millions of years to come!.... If you ask me...... I would rather sue radio hosts at the ratio of 1 song / 57 trillion un-authorized listeners, for 50 million years... than the average joe.. with 1 song / 3000 un-authorized listeners.
          </rant>
</insanity>

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

The "people making creative stuff" are receiving a tiny cut of the purchase price. The rest goes to fill the coffers of the publishers and executives who are acting not only as a barrier to trade by attempting to monopolize the means of dissemination of the work, but as a barrier to progress by attempting to oppress people who are doing what the majority of others are doing.

case details?

[GenKreton]

Is there some place where people get a list of who is being named in these suits? I assume it is public information since it's our public court system.

Just curious

I would complain about my tax money going to pay for these cases in court but you only ever hear of debt collection agencies calling those in the suits now...

Re:case details?

[TheSpoom]

The EFF used to have a searchable subpoena database but have shut that down now because the new suits are filed against anonymous persons, who are only revealed (if I understand it correctly, IANAL) after the courts have determined that the copyright infringement did in fact take place.

Re:case details?

[Copperhead]

Probably not immediately, since the lawsuits are more often than not "John Doe at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx IP" lawsuits.

Re:case details?

[GenKreton]

That's beautiful. So basically they have to determine your guilt without you there to defend yourself. I certainly hope you get a different judge all the time if you do choose to go to court later. Otherwise it sounds like they maybe a tad biased.

On top of that I don't see how some bittorrent connections prove you actually downloaded anything though it is pretty damning it seems too circumstantial for a court. Like there should be a need for hard evidence...

But that maybe asking too much of our judicial system. Ignorance was bliss :(

Re:case details?

[Pyrowolf]

The RIAA website noted that they aren't going after bittorrent trafficking (at least not yet).

From their release:

These "John Doe" lawsuits cite individuals for illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as Grokster, eDonkey, KaZaA, and LimeWire. The litigations were filed in federal district courts across the country, including in: California, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia

Most of these people are on completely open systems where they can easilly do a client search and see every single piece of data you are sharing. They aren't interested, again not yet at least, in people that are transmitting one single mp3/movie/etc, they are going after folks running large hubs and have gobs and gobs of mp3's shared. Then all they need is your IP, the client search results - they go after the ISP to tie the IP at the time they do the search to you, and go from there.

As the most widely used Gnutella clients are configired to immediately share everything you download, and most everyday folk doing the infringing don't know any better, they keep downloading, and forever share hundreds and hundreds of songs just asking for their little bots to come along and pick you off.

These file sharing networks are easy, bittorrent is a bit tougher. They would need to maintain a history of BT packets to specific IPs, and tie every instance of that traffic to the IP to the same person, and maintain that history to gain enough evidence to even begin to go after people. A lot more hassle than just browsing for specific RIAA-artist songs, then browsing every client that has it to see what else they might have that they are sharing that they can pin on them.

Maintaining transmission logs to IPs, or easy-peasy search and nab - why do you think they keep going after people on these same networks.

Re:case details?

[Kjella]

who are only revealed (if I understand it correctly, IANAL) after the courts have determined that the copyright infringement did in fact take place.

I'm not a lawyer either, but that's not the case. The RIAA need a court order, which is the same as the police do. It is not a trial, the standard is not "guilty/not guilty" (criminal) or even "preponderance of evidence" (civil), it is "reasonable suspicion". US police used to have to do the same to get subscriber information until the Patriot act, most western countries police forces still do.

Kjella

Witch hunt

[Nuclear Elephant]

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.

Since when did the RIAA care about the facts? They're not a morality organization, their only purpose is to generate revenue. Just like the SPA, MPAA, etc., these things start up as corporations run by high-powered attorneys. It's a great way to justify the existence of such an organization to the labels. As most people are already aware, the music industry wouldn't be what it is today without online file sharers who spend wads of cash buying legal music they ended up liking. Not trying to flame in the least bit - but why is everyone so surprised that an organization like this is defying all reason to pursue a bottom line?

Re:Witch hunt

[hackstraw]

They're not a morality organization, their only purpose is to generate revenue.

Huh? From http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum(TM), and Diamond® sales awards, and recently launched Los Premios De Oro y Platino(TM), a new award celebrating Latin music sales.

Re:Witch hunt

[Jim_Callahan]

Uh, the facts are that the legal rights of the compnies in question have been violated, and they are well within their rights to sue. Secondly, even if they were a moral organization, the moral thing to do is to defend your dependents from legal violation, regarless of wether they're making money off of it or not. Thirdly, the recording industry today wouldn't be any worse off if no one had ever sent a file over a linked network. There are these things called 'radios'. People listen to them and then buy music they like. Though /. (and apparrently half-assed studies) likes to ignore them, they're still a big chunk of where people find new music. And those people buy CDs, go to concerts, etc.

Re:Witch hunt

[WilliamSChips]

Their purpose is to generate revenue for the recording industry. They're a lobby group.

never ending downward spiral

[RobertKozak]

So, they sue people that spend more money on music than the average.

So these people stop spending in order to cover court costs, fees, pissed off, etc.

RIAA notices that less people are spending money on music (it must be the filesharers) so they sue more people.

Yet Again...

[CalcMan]

...they decide to try to destroy the system with more lawsuits rather then finding a better way to use the system to their benefit.

Rationalizing Theft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Below are the superficial facts. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

Below is a translation of the above superficial facts.

I support the idea of doing non-criminal activities as a way to avoid punishment for criminal activities. For example, if I steal a car and, later, donate the car to charity, then the authorities should ignore my original theft. I am Buddha. Therefore, I make the rules.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[kgruscho]

That is a very generous translation.

I would have translated it like this:
I paid for some of my music, so it's okay if I stole the rest of it.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[SilverspurG]

so it's okay if I stole the rest of it

Let's consider this critically for a moment. Theft is taking someone else's property without their consent.

At some point, the media producer sold the media to a distributor. Legally. That distributor then sold the media to the retail outlet. Legally. That retail outlet then sold the media to a customer. Legally. That customer then shared the media with you. Sharing is not theft.

All arguments based on the artificial concept of a license agreement aside... Just what part of this process was stealing?

What is a license agreement? There are two types of transactions: one in which ownership is transferred (sale), and one in which ownership is not transferred (rental). This business about a license agreement is a subversive technique attempting to obfuscate a rental as a sale in order to charge sale prices. 90% of the population would never exchange money for a CD if they knew it were an elaborate rental scam.

The only really fair lawsuit is one of false advertising against the media companies. They advertise sales but they really offer rentals. The fact that the rentals don't have a return date or late fees is irrelevant--Blockbuster does it.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[lump]

By the way, copyright violation is not theft. Theft is where you take something away from someone. And if filesharing has created sales, its a bit hard to say that it has deprived the record industry of anything, isn't it?

I would liken it to radio - I've always been able to hear music for free on the radio, and I can even tape it if I want. But, if I particularly like something, I'm always going to prefer to own the CD.

Saying that every song downloaded is a lost sale is obviously false, because anything I download, but don't subsequently purchase, I most likely wouldn't have bought anyway. But at least I now am able to confidently spend money on things I do like.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[zakezuke]

I support the idea of doing non-criminal activities as a way to avoid punishment for criminal activities. For example, if I steal a car and, later, donate the car to charity, then the authorities should ignore my original theft. I am Buddha. Therefore, I make the rules.

This analogy is flawd. There is NO theft.

A better analogy would be... let's say for example you rented a room to exhibit media that you didn't own the rights too... esp something you taped off the air. This would be wrong. But... let's say for example that you accepted donations for charity. Chances are... and this has been proven by others in the past... permission is always given. This is a great loophole for people who want to run marathons... entire seasons of programing in a rented hall legaly, moraly, and ethicaly correct.

Now... talk to an artist... give him a choice whether they would prefer low piracy and low profit, or high piracy and high profit. Which do you think they would choose? If you are doing something they wish you to do... there is no violation, and no copyright infringement... or "NO THEFT" to the boneheads who still feel this is a form of theft.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[KillShill]

they're rationalizing copyright infringement.

when you shill for the RIAA, at least get the terms right in order to argue on a level playing field.

oh wait...

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[spiritraveller]

I am Buddha. Therefore, I make the rules.

Get your religions straight before you start making sophomoric analogies.

Buddha is not Yahweh or Allah or God. Buddha doesn't make the rules, but simply recognizes them for what they are.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[stubear]

No, it's not a rental. You can do whatever you want with the physical media, including giving it away for free. You cannot do whatever you like with the content of the media however. Copyright limits what you can do with the content unless you pay for the rights to license the content. It really is that simple but for some reason many people want to complicate the issues with their armchair lawyering.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[SilverspurG]

Copyright limits what you can do with the content unless you pay for the rights to license the content

Just like I said. You want to be able to charge the price of a sale while retaining all of the ownership of a rental. Just what is this artificial subversive "license" you speak of, and what jurisdiction does the federal government have to enforce it? Last I checked, the federal government is empowered by the Constitution. The Constitution makes mention of reserving exclusive rights to individual authors and inventors. This whole bit about licensing doesn't have a darn thing to do with securing exclusive rights to authors and inventors.

And don't give me any interstate commerce crap. This whole business with the RIAA is, at best, outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. At worst it's blatantly unconstitutional and if there's federal action being taken against anyone, it should be taken against the media industry and the RIAA for subverting the Constitution to take the exclusive rights from the original authors and inventors.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[birge]

Ok, maybe we should just quit using the loaded term 'theft'. Let's just say violating copyright, or something. Calling it theft assumes the answer to the question in debate. It also leads people to argue that it's not theft, and they get so involved in their explanation they lose sight of the fact that it's still clearly illegal, whatever it is. We, as a society, agreed to the copyright laws. If you can just say "fuck it, i don't like 'em" than why can't we all just say "income tax law: fuck it, i don't like it". Some laws aren't moral in nature, but they are still important to the functioning of an advanced society.

Finally, while there may be arguments to be made that information should not be legally restricted don't act as if downloading is not hurting the music industry. Any honest person has to acknowledge that it is, as the fact pretty well documented. Just look at the decline of CD sales. It's an inverse of the P2P traffic.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[tepples]

We, as a society, agreed to the copyright laws.

I was too young to vote when the House and Senate that passed the Bono Act and the DMCA were elected.

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[birge]

Great. I was too young to vote when the income tax laws were passed. Do I get out of them?

If you want to look at it another way, just blame your parents. They had you in a country where they knew copyright was rampant. They signed the contract for you. (What kind of sick people would bring a child into a world where you have to pay for somebody's intellectual output?)

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[Tim C]

So campaign against the laws you see as being unjust. Practice civil disobedience if you must, but remember that the whole point of civil disobedience is to get caught. You don't hide your activities, you're blatant about it, as though they were perfectly legal. You're supposed to be demonstrating the wrongness of the law, in court if necessary, not hiding from the authorities and thus admitting that what you're doing is wrong. It's not wrong (in your view), that's the point!

Re:Rationalizing Theft?

[SilverspurG]

No one wants to be a martyr.

The goal is to live within the system while not burdening yourself with the complete and utter BS that's in it.

I don't want to go to court, I don't want to fight a battle, I have no crusade. The RIAA is the one on a crusade. You know what I say? Let them have it. They want a crusade, that's their problem. Quit wasting my taxpayer money to support it.

You're supposed to be demonstrating the wrongness of the law

That's a very popular troll. There are no stars in this world. No one's going to stand up to be a shining knight to take on the copyright system. No one's going to suddenly rise up out of the ashes and come up with the kind of cash that it takes to challenge the big IP companies.

Did you see what happened when the US took on MS? We wasted millions in taxpayer dollars and the US attorneys had their ass handed to them. Did you see what happened when the EU tried? They also had their ass handed to them and got a paltry settlement--and these were governments with taxpayer billions at their disposal to fight these legal battles.

How can you claim to be serious in suggesting that a private citizen mount a legal battle against the media industry with its associated lobbies and pocketed politicians?

There's no explanation. You've got to be astronomically naive... or a very pitiable troll.

I've heard this all before....

[Rahga]

In fact, I've been hearing it a lot today...

"Nobody's going to stop me from taking it."

"I can certainly understand it them stealing all of that. It's hard for people to understand unless they've actually lived and been through a situation like that."

"Salvaging no stuff? No, it's not my store, it's everybody's store."

Oh, wait... my bad, those weren't mp3 pirates. Rather, it's those pathetic looters that decided to stay in a town that lies below sea level when a massive hurricane came through.

Re:I've heard this all before....

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one more whiney point:

"Well if I don't loot it, somebody else will."

P.S.

Don't forget your cheese either.

Re:I've heard this all before....

[Compaq_Hater]

what the fuck was the point ?, had very little to do with the topic at hand. CH

Futility?

[laughingcoyote]

At first glance, this would seem futile.

From TFA:

The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.

This is an infinitesimal percent of filesharers, estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions. For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.

Really, though, I don't think it is. I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots. They have gotten away with massively unethical practices for a very long time, and idiots don't do that.

This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal. They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports. This is true despite the fact that they are consistently releasing garbage. But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach.

Re:Futility?

[shark72]

"For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now."

You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?

"I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots."

Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.

"This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal."

You're 100% correct: the music industry is in the business of distributing music. I would have thought that obvious, but there may be some people reading this who weren't aware of it.

"They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports."

Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.

"But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach."

Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.

Re:Futility?

[superyanthrax]

Ever heard of the saying "beat the child to save the class"? That's what the RIAA is doing. The usage of this technique certainly has plenty of precedent, from schoolteachers to dictators. Its effectiveness varies depending on the situation. I think that it's probably the RIAA's best shot at controlling music piracy, because they can't afford to prosecute everyone who pirates music, but they can't let piracy go either, because then it becomes socially acceptable and banning it would become very difficult (see Prohibition for an example of this). Therefore, they're trying to stir fear into the hearts of the public by going hard after a few people; thus they stem the tide of piracy. People who don't care would pirate anyway, but if the RIAA makes an example it prevents a lot of ordinary people from thinking that it is socially acceptable and thus start doing it.

Re:Futility?

[laughingcoyote]

You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?

Yes, I've met plenty. I doubt they'd appreciate me sharing their identity. However, statistically, P2P use is still on the rise and showing no signs of slowing.

However, requests for sources are always valid:

This story demonstrates the rise.

There are plenty of others. It is well known that Bittorrent, for example, makes up over 30% of Internet traffic, and (while I use it for them myself) that's not accounted for by Blizzard's patches and Linux distros.

It is pointless to try and stop a "crime" that millions of people are willing to permit, and even to commit. At this point, it's not a crime, it's an inevitability. Look at the failures of the various Prohibitions, for example.

Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.

I never said any of those things, so I feel no need to defend them, and in fact said that they are -not- fools. They are exploiters, they are monopolists, and they are in many ways operating at the edge or outside the edge of the law. But you don't get away with these behaviors for a century by being an idiot.

As I said none of the rest, you did, I'm not in the habit of wasting my time defending straw men.

Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.

Fair's fair, let's see YOUR sources. Indie labels overwhelmingly support and encourage filesharing, they're not about to turn down free advertising. Some even offer free downloads and a donation-based payment system right on their own website. This site has been operating for years now.

Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.

Very true. And if a business doesn't give its consumers what they obviously want, they can't make money. That is also universally accepted in very diverse areas of business.

Re:Futility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their methods are working somewhat. People are scared of sharing music, so most have turned to leeching off of big sharers.

The effective speed of downloads seems to have dropped over the years, making bittorrent all the more popular.

Re:Futility?

[Splintax]

For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.

I disagree. Do you think that the sort of people 'angered into sharing more' are the same sort of people sharing thousands of files on Kazaa/gnutella2 etc?

Re:Futility?

[HunterZ]

That's just it, though: pirating IS socially acceptable now - it's just not legal. Of the people that don't do it, the main reason is more likely that they haven't taken the time or haven't had the opportunity to learn how, and not that they have any kind of moral hangups about it.

For this we can again blame (at least partially) the industries for exaggerating claims regarding the seriousness and natures of the act (e.g. using labels such as pirating, stealing, and theft). Instead of scaring people away, it has desensitized them to the issue. Now they're having to resort to using the last method they have left to save themselves: the legal system.

Re:Futility?

[mpe]

It is pointless to try and stop a "crime" that millions of people are willing to permit, and even to commit. At this point, it's not a crime, it's an inevitability. Look at the failures of the various Prohibitions, for example.

But that dosn't stop their advocates continuing with the "war". If anything using the legal system is more effective than using soldiers, since it's harder for people to fight back.

Re:Futility?

[laughingcoyote]

In some cases, it's people that don't ever move stuff out of that good old "shared" folder in Limewire. In other cases, you bet your ass it is. I know plenty of filesharers who are outraged at the tactics currently being used and impelled to share all the more.

There are plenty of people who believe that filesharing is ethical and acceptable, and laws to stop it are unethical and unacceptable. Do you really think that you can outlaw something millions of people do all the time, and not see a backlash? Do you think a culture who values free speech likes suddenly having large blocks of content walled off from showing to their friends? Do you really think someone who spent the better part of a thousand bucks for their shiny new computer wants to be told they're going to have to shell out a load more for basic software?

The mistake made by the anti-filesharing crowd is in presuming that filesharers are simply a bunch of freeloaders who wouldn't pay a nickel for the best cause in the world. That's true of some. But I don't think even most. For most, it is either a casual, try-before-you-buy concept, or an expression of outrage at the out of control power of corporations and their abuses of that power. THAT, is a good cause. You're free to disagree, and you're free to defend the rights of corporations who, UNLIKE those who fileshare, are quite often convicted criminals. (At least in the case of Microsoft and the RIAA, I would be HAPPY to back this up.) But you've got quite the uphill battle convincing the public that an infinitely replicatable resource should be made artificially scarce for the purpose of extracting enormous sums of money from their wallets. Good luck, and we shall see who prevails!

Re:Futility?

[Splintax]

There are plenty of people who believe that filesharing is ethical and acceptable, and laws to stop it are unethical and unacceptable. Do you really think that you can outlaw something millions of people do all the time, and not see a backlash?

Nop,e not at all. I just think that the file sharers who believe in freedom of speech and all that are just the minority, and quite significantly.

Speaking from experience from doing private jobs for people (spyware / virus cleanup etc. at their house for AU$20 an hour), if there is any sort of filesharing software, it is 90% of the time installed by the kids who heard about it from their friends.

Re:Futility?

[laughingcoyote]

(Slightly OT) That's actually pretty cheap. Most companies here charge US $35-$60 for onsite calls. I occasionally help my father-in-law out at his computer shop, and while he's toward the low end of that, the recent spike in gas prices has him considering raising the rates.

Alright, back on topic. That 90% fits one of my categories-the casual ones. Those kids are going to want the shiny, flashy merchandise. If they like the CD, they're going to buy it eventually, because it looks cool. They'll probably also buy the T-shirt, and the concert ticket-there's some things you can't digitize, imagine the difference between taking your girlfriend to the Dave Matthews concert and asking her to come over for a bootleg recording of one!

However, I seriously doubt if most of these know how to rip anything but an unprotected CD to a mediocre .mp3, and if they even contribute those it'll be because their friend wants it and they incidentally throw it in their "shared" folder.

In fact, for others, it's simply a convenience. Most of the mp3's I download are from CD's I already own, but it's faster for me, on broadband, to grab the mp3 from someone who's already gone to the trouble, then to find the CD, throw it in, and then fire up LAME and rip it. I also most certainly have a burned copy of every CD I own-about 8 years ago someone stole my CD collection out of my car, was worth over $600. (Oh, by the way, though you haven't personally used the term-this demonstrates well the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement". Do you think, had they simply made copies of the CD's right there and left the originals alone, I would have minded?) If they do it this time, the most valuable thing they'll get is the $30 case, and all I'll have to buy again is another spindle of blank discs. And yes, I did re-download mp3's for those stolen CD's that I hadn't replaced yet. I don't feel a bit bad about that, I already purchased them. Just because the available means for consumers to make backups came -after- the fact doesn't mean I won't use it.

However, you effectively proved my point-I would imagine probably 60-70% of P2P users fall into the "casual" category I put forth, and you explained further, and probably 15-20% into the power user-heavy supplier end. The rest are the hardcore freeloaders, I would imagine mainly broke college students who wouldn't have a nickel to spend on the stuff anyway. It's -still- free advertising, they're still being exposed to the product. Do you really think the college studen with 8 gigabytes of mp3's and $2 in his wallet would've purchased 200 CD's but for the evil P2P network?

Re:Futility?

[Splintax]

(Slightly OT) That's actually pretty cheap. Most companies here charge US $35-$60 for onsite calls. I occasionally help my father-in-law out at his computer shop, and while he's toward the low end of that, the recent spike in gas prices has him considering raising the rates.

Yep, that's because I have to charge a lower amount, since I do it as a 'hobby' (ie. not a registered business), and I'm only fifteen.

If they like the CD, they're going to buy it eventually, because it looks cool. They'll probably also buy the T-shirt, and the concert ticket I definitely agree with the T-shirt and the concert ticket, because that's what I do - I usually get my introduction to a band by getting mp3's off a friend, and since then I've gone to several concerts of those bands. I'm not into the T-shirt thing, but I also purchase a lot of music DVDs of those bands (and not just because you can't find them pirated on the 'net ;)). I see that as my way of trying to support the artists.

In my opinion, the point that you're missing is the fact that the 90% who I'm talking about aren't generally "real" music fans. I'm talking about 11 - 12 year olds who basically hear a song on the radio and say "wow, that song's cool, I want it on the iPod my parents bought for me". They download the song, which yes, may have initially been pirated by people way up in the mp3 'scene', but is by and large being shared by other people like them. That's why if you search for a song currently in the "top" 40 on any of these networks you'll always find hundreds of people sharing it.

The other thing is that these sort of people, at least while they are still 12 or so, never seem to develop any sort of 'fandom' of a particular band. For example, my sister (who fits into this age group, although she gets me to get her her music so isn't into the P2P thing) told me the other day that a song was 'heaps old' and that it was therefore a crap song because it had been off the charts for 6 months or something. (Actually, I'd been listening to it as part of another album that I had and wasn't aware that it had ever been "on the charts".)

These people basically don't support the artists in any way except through "So Fresh" et al. Don't know if you have that in the US, but it's this compilation CD released four times a year with "twenty of the latest pop hits" on it.

Re:Futility?

[laughingcoyote]

Don't have a "So Fresh" under that name, but there's plenty of compilation CD's done like that. I don't generally listen to top 40 type stuff in any case so it's not something I follow real closely.

As to the younger "fans" (or lack thereof), I certainly can't speak to how it is in Australia, so will take your word for it. It's certainly true that younger fans here (at least many) do tend to gravitate toward the "top 40"/boyband-girlband/etc. type stuff, but those are DEFINITELY doing mommy-please-buy on the T-shirts, concert tickets, etc. Certainly the latest boy/girl band will never fail to sell out a show, and afterwards they want the T-shirt, and the poster, and whatever else some marketer can come up with.

Also (again, speaking for the US, I'm not familiar with the system in Australia so what you said could be absolutely correct there), purchase of a CD here from a major-label band does NOT support the artist. If they -ever- see money out of CD sales (many don't, it goes toward repaying "loans" that were effectively forcibly granted to them), it's a few pennies per copy. Artists here are forced to give up their copyrights in order to join a major label. The situation in the indie world tends to be much better, but due to payola radio, an indie act doesn't have near the chance of "making it big". Of course, not all want that. But I follow quite a few indie artists, and know a few, and without exception they -encourage- you to put their stuff on the P2P network. A couple have even said thank you for it. And in this case, I happily buy the CD, because most of the money's going into the pocket it belongs in-the guys in the band.

To the lack of true music fans-got to agree with you there, no one appreciates a really great, innovative act anymore. But then, none of the major labels -put out- great, innovative acts anymore. That's why I'm not a big downloader of major label stuff-I'm not scared of getting sued, but 99% of the stuff isn't any more worth using bandwidth rather then money to grab and HD space rather then shelf space to keep. I still, however, don't believe that it's immoral or criminal to do not-for-profit sharing, and every artist I've had the chance to ask that -directly- benefits from CD sales agrees-it's great advertising and exposure.

If copyright were reformed to have, say, a 5-10 year duration, no corporate ownership of copyrights unless the corporation itself is genuinely the creator (for example, a group of developers doing work at a software house, NOT a band who is later forced to lie by stating that their work was "work for hire" when it wasn't), mandatory registration, mandatory leave for fair use (and no copy protection that prevents it), and a strict prohibition on using "licenses" (ala EULA's) to extend what's impermissible, I'd fully support it. Until then, it's a bad law that fails to serve its explicit purpose (to promote the progress of science and the useful arts), and I encourage its rejection.

Open WAP

[Bios_Hakr]

Just a silly question:

What's to stop the defendant from claiming that they didn't download the files? If you run a WAP, there is virtually no way (short of them seizing your PC) for them to prove that you actually downloaded the files.

With most techno-idiot judges, just claim the "hackers" used your wireless access point to download the files.

Re:Open WAP

[hotdrop]

Id like to see a test case for this as well cause technicaly thats a perfectly valid excuse.

Re:Open WAP

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* Once more... They aren't being sued for downloading, they are being sued for distributing.

Re:Open WAP

[Bios_Hakr]

*sigh* Once more... An IP address is not an identy.

No, an IP address is being sued for uploading. There is no proof that a specific person used an IP address to upload.

Re:Open WAP

[Anonymous Coward]

then say a hacker was sharing from your WAP

Re:Open WAP

[DeepRedux]

The rules of civil court pretty much require that a defendant testify if they want to have any chance of winning the case. (Refusal to testify can be taken as evidence of guilt in a civil case.) So this defense would require affirmatively testify that they did not engage in the alleged file sharing.

Lying under oath could land one in jail. I bet the RIAA would pay for investigators to try to find evidence of perjury and turn over the evidence to the US attorney for criminal prosecution.

Re:Open WAP

[Bios_Hakr]

It could be almost impossible for them to gather evidince. Even if they raided my home and found gigs of MP3s, they don't have evidince I uploaded.

Even if they find eMule or BitTorrent installed, they can't prove I was running it on the day/time in question.

And finally, if I continued to run an open WAP, any future sharing would also be virtually impossible to prove.

Not to mention it'd be really expensive for them to do this vice just filing court paperwork and collecting checks.

Re:Open WAP

[anthony_dipierro]

What's to stop the defendant from claiming that they didn't download the files?

Nothing, although it'll probably cost the defendent a lot of money to make that claim, as most people wouldn't know how to do so without hiring a lawyer.

If you run a WAP, there is virtually no way (short of them seizing your PC) for them to prove that you actually downloaded the files.

The burden of proof is not very high in a civil case. It really depends on the details. If you and your lawyer are smart enough, and you're willing to perjure yourself, you could probably get away with it. Of course, you'll also spend quite a bit on legal fees.

Re:Open WAP

[Splab]

Dont know about your side of the pond, but over here (Denmark) it's the person having the ADSL or whatnot that is ultimately responsible for what ever is going on on the line, therefore, if someone missuses a WAP to download music you will be responsible.

Re:Open WAP

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that known as perjury?

Re:Open WAP

[Chris_Jefferson]

How about because there might be traces of the files on your computer, or they might find some other way of finding out. Also lying to a court isn't really looked upon very highly. It's much more serious than pirating some music.

Re:Open WAP

[Kjella]

It could be almost impossible for them to gather evidince. (...)"

You're mixing up "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence". No matter how weak their evidence is, you need to have stronger evidence that it is not so. Let me put it in reverse:

The real question you have to ask is "Is it probable that a wardriver has been using your open Wi-Fi, using the same program you have installed, sharing the same file?" If the answer to that question is "No", you will lose the case.

Not to mention it'd be really expensive for them to do this vice just filing court paperwork and collecting checks.

vice = versus. And it will be considerably far more expensive for you, defending yourself. And the ungodly damages they can claim will fund their case (at least on average) and bankrupt you (should you lose).

Kjella

Re:Open WAP

[Jearil]

How about because there might be traces of the files on your computer, or they might find some other way of finding out. Also lying to a court isn't really looked upon very highly. It's much more serious than pirating some music.

Just as a musing, This could probably be gotten around without actualy commiting prejury.

Prejury is basically making a false statement while under oath. I think the idea would be to bring doubt into the case by stating that it is feasible, and perhaps not even completely unlikely, that someone else could be using your same connection without your knowledge to share files. Now if you really were sharing files yourself (and if you don't own the copyright on them or have permission, shame on you), then if the court asks you directly if you were sharing files, you could use the fifth amendment.

The idea, I believe, would be to place doubt into the system. That an IP address found by the RIAA is not an acceptable unique identifier for a person. It would be a bit risky though, and probably cost a bunch in lawyer fees.. But I'd be interested in the story if anyone tried.

That's not the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that people can fileshare so they will, it's human nature. And unless they create some very scary laws it won't stop. So support the system all you want, but it's inherently flawed if it tries to go upstream of the torrent that is human nature, it will fail. IMHO all laws should be designed to work with our humanity, not against it.

Re:That's not the point.

[QuantumG]

Killing the guy who takes your mate is human nature too. What a stupid argument. It's not "human nature" that laws should be aligned with, it's the "will of the people" and on the matter of file sharing the people have spoken: we want to share.

Re:That's not the point.

[rramdin]

Have you ever heard of temporary insanity? People have successfully gotten off murder charges with a plea of temporary insanity for killing the person with whom their spouse was cheating.

Re:That's not the point.

[QuantumG]

You shouldn't believe everything you see on television.

Re:That's not the point.

[rramdin]

From Wikipedia: "In 1859, Congressman Daniel Sickles shot and killed Phillip Barton Key, for having conducted an affair with his wife Teresa. The murder took place on Lafayette Square, just north of the White House. Sickles was acquitted, on the basis of temporay insanity, in one of the most controversial trials of the 19th century." Also, try reading about temporary insanity. I'm sure you'll find it informative. Just because it's on TV doesn't mean you shouldn't believe it.

Re:That's not the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have thoughts that don't rest on the word "we", little thug?

Re:That's not the point.

[Oligonicella]

So, the "will of the people" is to rip-off someone else? And, just who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Re:That's not the point.

[QuantumG]

wow, you are indoctrinated. Exactly how is sharing files a "rip-off" of someone else?

Re:That's not the point.

[tyllwin]

Whichever side of the argument you're on, it might be well to remember that copyright has never in human history been recognized as some natural property right: it's an artificial (and arbitrary) grant of privilege by a government. It's given by the votes of politicians, and could be taken away as easily. I imagine that the people screaming "ILLEGAL" the loudest right now would suddenly reverse course and pound on the "morality matters more than law," trope now used by their opponents if the law were more responsive to the will of the governed than the dollars of narrow special interest group.

Re:That's not the point.

[fafalone]

The laws should not be aligned with the will of the people, and in fact the founding fathers did a decent job of making sure it didn't happen. If laws exactly follow the will of the people, things quickly deteriorate into the minority being oppressed by the majority. Most people don't even know what's best for themselves, let alone what's best for those with different viewpoints than their own, especially when that viewpoint is not a black and white issue. The "people" are idiots, and making laws based on a direct democracy system is even worse than a tight oligarchy; paradoxically "people" support the current Republican one. The "people" want Creationism back in the public schools, (23% believe Creationism is the ONLY thing that should be taught in schools, 55% say evolution, creationism, and intelligent design should all be taught, Harris Poll June 17-21 2005). Downloading within the doctrine of fair use should absolutely be legal, but not simply because the "people" think so.

Re:That's not the point.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Killing the guy who takes your mate is human nature too.

Speak for yourself; it's not my nature. I don't agree at all that it's human nature to kill someone you're jealous of. Yell at them or even beat them up, perhaps, but it's against the survival of the species to go killing whenever someone crosses us.

What a stupid argument. It's not "human nature" that laws should be aligned with, it's the "will of the people" and on the matter of file sharing the people have spoken: we want to share.

Laws are aligned with the greater good of the people. The will of the people was once to own slaves and conquer Native American lands as our own. It's also the "will of the people" to speed and end up killing people and getting into car accidents, but we keep those speed limit signs firmly in place regardless because we know it's right.

And by your logic anyway, the will of the people is not to share, because Slashdot has previously reported that iTunes is now competing percentage-wise with P2P apps. With the continued dominance of the iPod and the passing of physical media as a format for music (sorry, DVD-A), expect that percentage to grow.

Plus, the music on iTunes just plain sounds better than MP3s ripped from CD. It's hard to beat encoding from master tapes.

Re:That's not the point.

[QuantumG]

It's also the "will of the people" to speed and end up killing people and getting into car accidents, but we keep those speed limit signs firmly in place regardless because we know it's right.

except it isn't. Studies in Europe have found that street signs and traffic lights do more to distract people from what is happening on the road than they do to stop accidents. Take away all the street signs and traffic lights and people actually start paying attention to what is happening on the road and drive more safely.

Re:That's not the point.

[Overly Critical Guy]

And yet the laws stay on the books, because they're for the greater good--our safety. Besides, traffic sign effectiveness has to do with its conveyed message.

More on those "naked streets":

The RAC Foundation, an independent body established to protect the interests of motorists, believes the naked street concept can work -- but only in certain situations.

It's worried about the safety implications of such a scheme along Exhibition Road, where free museums annually attract millions of visitors, including schoolchildren.

Currently pedestrians in the area are encouraged to elude the street-level turmoil by using a drab underground walkway.

"We have a concern that introducing a scheme which means drivers must make eye contact with pedestrians could backfire if you have a busload of 10-year-olds trying to cross the road," said Edmund King, the RAC Foundation's executive director.

"There are surely other things that can be done to help pedestrians without compromising safety," he said. "It is an interesting idea in completely the wrong place."

I should note--you're arguing that removing traffic signs would make people drive more safely. Are you now saying not enforcing copyright would make people buy the real thing, contradicting your earlier point that it's "the will of the people" to file-share materials?

In other words, distracting traffic signs have nothing to do with the topic of file-sharing. You claim "will of the people," I point out other wills of the people that derail that argument, and you bring up traffic sign distractions and vehicle queue problems. They have nothing to do with each other.

Re:That's not the point.

[QuantumG]

I was pointing out that you were making bullshit assumptions that have been shown to be incorrect.

But if you want my opinion on what would happen if file-sharing was tomorrow declared legal and polluting file-sharing systems with junk files was declared illegal, I'll tell ya. First off, all the dinosaurs of the media business would die off. People would start using for-pay file-sharing systems more for the sole reason that they provide a better service. Artists would make more money because there'd be no middleman and customers would feel they are not being forced to pay, that instead it is their choice. Blatant commercialisation of music would stop, resulting in people forming their tastes from actually listening to a selection of music instead of being spoonfed what is "cool". Artists would, as a result, have more freedom to express themselves.

That's the will of the people. The law is standing in the way of it to keep a bunch of fat cat lobbyists giving them money.

Re:That's not the point.

[Overly Critical Guy]

I was pointing out that you were making bullshit assumptions that have been shown to be incorrect.

I didn't make bullshit assumptions, you did. You said it was human nature to kill people who took your mate, and then you said laws reflected the will of the people. I pointed out that it is not human nature to kill people, and that the will of the people is outweighed by the need for protecting the greater good of society; case in point, speeding laws. You haven't proven anything.

But if you want my opinion on what would happen if file-sharing was tomorrow declared legal and polluting file-sharing systems with junk files was declared illegal, I'll tell ya.

Why would polluting P2P systems be declared illegal? Isn't that against free will?

First off, all the dinosaurs of the media business would die off. People would start using for-pay file-sharing systems more for the sole reason that they provide a better service.

Uh, why would people magically start using for-pay file-sharing just because P2P infringement was legalized? What does legalizing P2P infringement have to do with the service quality of for-pay systems? People are already flocking to iTunes.

Artists would make more money because there'd be no middleman and customers would feel they are not being forced to pay, that instead it is their choice.

1.) How would artists get paid if P2P infringement was legalized?

2.) How are consumers being "forced to pay" anything in today's system? Nobody's holding a gun to your head. Songs are only .99 on iTunes.

Blatant commercialisation of music would stop

Your subjective judgments have nothing to do with this.

resulting in people forming their tastes from actually listening to a selection of music instead of being spoonfed what is "cool".

Stop with the lame victim mentality.

That's the will of the people.

I already addressed your "will of the people" argument. Laws aren't made based on the will of the people, they're made for the greater good.

The law is standing in the way of it to keep a bunch of fat cat lobbyists giving them money.

No, you're just trying hard to throw in anti-capitalism because you don't have an argument, and you're trying to lean on your own subjective opinions of pop music to portray a lame victim mindset that has no basis. What is the law "standing in the way" of? Free-form piracy so no artists get paid for anything? You don't have a right to someone's music.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

Re:That's not the point.

[Overly Critical Guy]

"Why would polluting P2P systems be declared illegal? Isn't that against free will?"

And by this I mean that there's nothing wrong or illegal about polluting a P2P system. Nobody's rights are being violated.

Re:That's not the point.

[QuantumG]

Free-form piracy so no artists get paid for anything? You don't have a right to someone's music.

This is what your argument boils down to. You refuse to see the other side of the equation. I have a right to copy and share anything I want. The only thing that stops me is law. You have no evidence to suggest that this law is necessary for artists to get paid. Yet you declare it as fact.

What is the law "standing in the way" of?

Me being free to use my computer as I see fit! Duh!

Re:That's not the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's against the survival of the species to go killing whenever someone crosses us.

You don't know that at all. There could be many situations in which killing the asshole improves the survival of the species. You'd have to study a large number of instances and somehow track the long term effects on the species to even begin to have a basis for your statement. It even seems plausible that killing a mate-stealer might improve the survival of the species because maintaining the integrity of the family unit seems related to survival probability.

Re:That's not the point.

[Fusen]

23% of 2000 people, so what? don't refer to surveys, they are flawed.

Re:That's not the point.

[EzInKy]

The laws should not be aligned with the will of the people, and in fact the founding fathers did a decent job of making sure it didn't happen. If laws exactly follow the will of the people, things quickly deteriorate into the minority being oppressed by the majority.


But that is just the way it is. Drinking was illegal during Prohibition but people still drank and pot is illegal today but people still get high. When there aren't enough people to support a law that law is nothing but ink on a page.

Re:That's not the point.

[Richard_at_work]

Incase you hadnt noticed, all property laws are artificial. Theres nothing natural stopping me from coming along and taking your unattended car, moving into your house, taking your garden furniture. What does stop me? Laws. Exactly the same as what stops me sharing copyrighted material I dont have a license to distribute. Copyright infringement and theft are two different things, but both are infringement of artificial laws - you have no natural claim to protection of possessions.

Re:That's not the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, the music on iTunes just plain sounds better than MP3s ripped from CD. It's hard to beat encoding from master tapes.

Your post would be correct if you were talking about a an analog cassette made at the record company from the analog master vs a home made copy made from LP.

You seem to equate digital with analog; they're not the same. With analog, every copy degrades. With digital, you're simply copying a list of numbers. "compressing" to MP3 or WMA is simply discarding some of those numbers.

MP3s, WMAs, OGGs are all lossy. Your MP3 is not going to sound as good as the CD no matter whether you ripped it from CD or from the master. Ripped from the master will not make a lossy format any less lossy than one ripped from CD.

Re:That's not the point.

[Floody]

Killing the guy who takes your mate is human nature too. What a stupid argument. It's not "human nature" that laws should be aligned with, it's the "will of the people" and on the matter of file sharing the people have spoken: we want to share.

I disagree with your first assertion and agree with the last. Feeling anger towards the person who "steals" your mate is human nature. However, one of the finer aspects of human character is our ability to control our actions. Members of society who blindly follow every fool impulse that crosses their mind are members who must be removed and isolated for the protection of society as a whole.

Adult non-sociopaths guide their interactions with others by identification and role-reversal. The simple (but often too elusive) "if I were Y instead of X, how would this affect me." The problem, morally, with intellectual property issues is that it is often very hard to make this identification and thus the purely moral case is somewhat elusive.

In the case of the recording industry, artist's views on the subject cover a broad spectrum. Their obvious disconnect from the supplier-chain creates a psychological obstacle (on both sides) for applying the "golden rule" (something a rational member of society will normally apply when making moral decisions).

Perhaps if said disconnect between artist and purveyor were minimized, the moral implications would become more clear (one way or the other -- and again, on both sides). Unfortunately, the paradox we find ourselves in is that the technology that could make this possible is both (a) threatening to the status-quo and (b) potentially too exploitable in the eyes of some artists (and I mean the real artists here).

Re:That's not the point.

[Overly Critical Guy]

This is what your argument boils down to. You refuse to see the other side of the equation. I have a right to copy and share anything I want.

No, you don't. You don't have the right to copy and share anything you want. If you'd like, I even can link to the Bill of Rights for you to confirm.

You're just another kid into pseudo-anarchy. You'll grow up soon enough.

The only thing that stops me is law.

Not only the law, but ethics and morality. As an artist, you would be making sure I don't get paid, thereby ensuring that only the big-named, "safe" artists ever get signed and put out there, because nobody will want to take risks on artists that don't have guaranteed sales. Independent artists would be too risky. They make such little money as it is. You want to make sure they absolutely never make any.

You have no evidence to suggest that this law is necessary for artists to get paid. Yet you declare it as fact.

It's basic common sense; legalizing free-form copyright infringement would make it so that nobody paid for anything, so that artists would never get compensated. You have zero evidence for your claims. Hell, you still haven't addressed the insanely ridiculous "it's human nature to kill people" claim of yours.

Me being free to use my computer as I see fit! Duh!

You don't have the right to do anything you want, particularly when it infringes on other people's rights. Welcome to the real world, kid. I'll let you in on a revelation--you're just a freeloader who gets bitter when the free ride is taken away, seeking desperately for justifications of your behavior.

Re:That's not the point.

[Overly Critical Guy]

MP3s, WMAs, OGGs are all lossy. Your MP3 is not going to sound as good as the CD no matter whether you ripped it from CD or from the master.

I hate to break it to you, but CDs are lossy too. Yes, ripping from the master tapes sounds better than ripping from the CD. Particularly, there is clearer stereo separation and more high-end, and a general loudness/punchiness that isn't there when ripping from CD.

Ripped from the master will not make a lossy format any less lossy than one ripped from CD.

100% wrong.

In other news..

[JPriest]

Intel shipped more processors, Dell sold more PCs, and the sun came up.

Re:In other news..

[serialdogma]

> and the sun came up.
Should that not be SUN still does not opensource Java?

I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[linuxhansl]

Not because I am sharing or downloading music (which I don't) but because of the RIAA's actions.

Anybody who does not agree with the RIAA's current actions, should do the same: Vote with your wallet.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

I love CD's. No DRM and 44100 samples per second and two channels are good enough for me. I want this format to stay around for a long time.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[linuxhansl]

I love CD's. No DRM and 44100 samples per second and two channels are good enough for me. I want this format to stay around for a long time.

You have a point. CD's are (still) free of DRM. What else can one do to protest, though?

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[paulius_g]

I bought my last CD in 1998.

I've got this awesome website which fill in all my needs. www.shoutcast.com :-)

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[Nivoset]

i would be happy to buy more cd's again if the price was mroe reasonable. they say its expensive because of the label and the booklet and the such in a cd... but then. a dvd movie is about the same price (20$ for a dvd seems good to me) and they have, bigger capacity disc's, color labels and all. though no booklet. its also almost 2 hours longer and has video in it as well. and more people involved in the making of it. (since in a movie they have to do the audio sweetening too) so i really dont see the point of paying more than 10$ for a cd. or if the price stays the same, online being cheaper. cause of them not making a copy physically at all.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[sinewalker]

Not all CD's are DRM-free -- look at EMI. In fact Phillips nearly sued because they "broke" their CDs to impliment, so they aren't really CDs anymore (and I have an EMI CD which will not play in my car).

I am not sure what to do to protest (beyond what seems to be happening already -- consumers aren't buying today's crap, and RIAA/ARIA/MPAA etc are just blaming it on the Net anyway). I am considering what would happen if lots of fans started writing directly to their favourite artists and asking them these questions:

* why do you have this deal with your distributor EMI? I can't play your music, so I will not buy from them, even though I love your group.

* why don't you consider putting sample tracks on your web site? For that matter, why don't you deal directly with Apple, or start your own pay-per-download site for your songs? I'm sure heaps of fans like me will buy them, and you could get a much larger cut per track than Warner Bros is giving you

Of course, there are costs to running a web site also. But I wonder if what may happen eventually is a return to music guilds, where a guild runs the site, member groups contribute content and all proffit goes to the members. It would probably be a good business to start, atracting new groups like the "Idol" TV shows do now. Shame I have hopeless business sense though.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[ucblockhead]

You realize that if a "CD boycott" was successful, the RIAA would just blame the lost sales on evil pirates, right?

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

No DRM and 44100 samples per second and two channels are good enough for me.

So is this.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[serialdogma]

But is still not the same as uncompressed PCM.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[failure-man]

Independent labels. Plenty of good stuff on those, and they won't jerk you around with high prices and DRM like the RIAAs will. RIAA Radar and eMusic are excellent places to start.

If you do need an RIAA CD once in awhile then getting it used doesn't do anything to the bastards' bottom line.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[serialdogma]

It is still not DRM, they just screwed with the disk to make it a non-CD that, in same cases still worked as a CD would.
DRM involes it being encrypted, so that you need the right key to use it. The software that has this key will ONLY let you do approved things to it.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[Nasarius]

But is still not the same as uncompressed PCM.

It is if you download as FLACs.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[anthony_dipierro]

Searching Google for "boycott", I see boycott RIAA, boycott Microsoft, boycott Amazon, boycott Bush, and boycott Nike.

Doesn't seem to me like boycotts work.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[NoGuffCheck]

I totally agree and am doing the same despite wanting to buy the latest Deep Dish Album. I occasionally download music though via popular P2P client :) and while im at it, i started my boycott when I saw that show Cribs.. i really dont need to be reminded like how im (was) paying way too much for each CD. who needs 5 Hummers, 14 basketball courts and 2 swimming pools to prove they are themuthafukengangsta? wankers!

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[Stephen Williams]

Likewise, though I do still buy CDs from non-RIAA labels. Most of the music I'm interested in at the moment is video game music, published by Japanese labels that don't seem to be on the list of RIAA members. Costs a bomb to import, mind.

-Stephen

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[John Hasler]

If a CD boycott was truly sucessessful (no chance) they'd be doing their blaming in bankruptcy court.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[keyne9]

Wait, so what you're implying is that there is new music out there that you'd like to hear?

I'm on a "boycott" of sorts as well, only I haven't actually enjoyed -anything- that has been put out in the past decade or so. No, I'm not older either; I just find that the majority of the music coming out is truly terrible.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[Shajenko42]

Not usually, but they sometimes do.

For instance, after the Rosa Parks incident, Martin Luther King Jr. organized a boycott amongst black people on buses until they got rid of their rules requiring black people do give up their seats to white people. They walked everywhere instead.

It brought the bus companies to their knees.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[The Creator]

" I occasionally download music though via popular P2P client :)"

Dammit that hurts the cause, you can't bojcott something _and_ use the product. Stop the fuck doing that.

You don't really need that music and by downloading you are just helping RIAA.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[abb3w]

Doesn't seem to me like boycotts work.

Incorrect. Merely calling for a boycott is not necessarily enough, and most companies can poll well enough to realize if their conduct is likely to trigger people deciding on a widespread boycott, and moderate their practices enough to defuse such situations. On rare occasions where it does get bad enough for a boycott, the company quickly takes steps to address the cause.

It's similar to tactics which have been weakening organized labor for decades. Of course, there's the risk of building up enough widespread difuse resentment to trigger major social upheaval, which as a rule is bad for business. But with the dumbing down of America, those with the ability to organize such change generally find it easier these days to take steps to benefit themselves personally.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[pr0vidence]

Been doing that for a few years now. I have not purchased an RIAA affiliated CD in quite some time. At least not new.

I buy indie CDs all the time though, either from CDBaby, or from the artist's site directly.

When a new mainstream CD comes out that I want to get my hands on I keep a list, if I happen to see a copy floating around my local used music store I pick it up. It's cheaper for me (usually $6-8 an album). I support a local small business, which in these days of Wal-Mart I am all too happy to do. And NONE of the money goes to the RIAA.

If I could get an album super cheap and "donate" money ($5??) directly to the artist, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I think that some artists are finally starting to realize that they don't really NEED the RIAA anymore, they can distribute their music online on their own and do much better for themselves than the...what?...$0.32 they make form each CD sale form the RIAA?

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[alan_dershowitz]

Buy USED CDs. The RIAA doesn't get a cut of that sale. The music's the same, as long as the CD's playable. No DRM and cheaper too, my friend.

I get all my CDs this way. You can even support local businesses and your community this way, instead of enriching a multinational corporation.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah, I exaggerated a bit, occassionally where the boycott is extremely well organized and followed by a large group of people, they can work. Even then, you have to have some sort of reasonable demand. What is the demand here, we want the RIAA to let us download music for free?

If we came up with a reasonable demand, for instance "no more DRM", and then organized a boycott specifically targetted at record companies which used DRM, there might be success. But the organization would have to be key. And there'd have to be enough people who care about some particular issue which is reasonable to expect the record companies to change.

Personally, I don't really care. I don't think I've ever bought a CD from an RIAA affiliated record company (I own two, but I think they were gifts). Not because it's a boycott, though. When I used to listen to a lot of music, I used to download it all. I bought from indie artists directly, but I considered that more a donation than anything else. Nowadays I listen to the radio once in a while and that's it.

It's not like we're talking about something important like public transportation back in the 60s.

Re:I'm on a 100% music CD boycott

[anthony_dipierro]

On rare occasions where it does get bad enough for a boycott, the company quickly takes steps to address the cause.

The thing is, I'm not even sure what the cause is in this situation. People want to be able to download music for free off the internet? No amount of boycotting would allow that, because some customers is better than no customers.

Back in the day, sharing was normal

[JohnnyComeLately]

I bet you money they (the execs) used to drive old beat up cars in high school, with tape decks. In the tape decks were dubbed tapes with their favortite tunes recorded from FM radio or friends. Although it's nice to associate music with property (and the theft of such), but it's simply something people have been doing for decades.

If you liked it, you went out and bought it. Now before you say, "Yeah, but digital lasts forever". Nope, CDs get scratched, p0rn sites unleash system infecting bots to delete, etc.

Re:Back in the day, sharing was normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a job for bash:

I said I was back with Cake. I never said there was enough for everyoone IM ETHIOPIAN.. POOR, HUNGRY, NOW GIVE ME CAKE didn't napster teach you anything about sharing? Yes. Don't.

Re:Back in the day, sharing was normal

[runderwo]

Sounds like the politicians who support the War-on-Drug-Users today, yet were snorting coke and hitting the bong before they reached office, and continue to intake their alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, happy pills, viagra, and such other 'government-approved' drugs. Everyone who uses 'illegal' drugs deserves to go to jail, but they deserve to be forgiven because they became productive members of society. Well, would that have happened if THEY had gone to jail?

Re:Back in the day, sharing was normal

[thoth_amon]

I think the key argument to bring out here is that if you are OK with dubbing songs on a tape and giving them to someone else, then _you are OK with stealing, sometimes_. Then the debate is not whether "stealing" is OK, but rather, when is it OK?

Those who oppose file-trading want to make it black-and-white: if you trade MP3s, you're stealing, and stealing is bad, mkay? But if tape-trading is OK, then stealing is not inherently bad -- at least not the kind of stealing where you give songs to your friends.

Once we go there, it's a very slippery slope. Most of the comforts of absolutism are gone.

The "lasts forever" argument doesn't hold water, because I think most people who concede that making a tape and giving it to mom is OK, would also feel that making a CD and giving it to mom is equally OK. But the contents of a CD are digital; they last "forever" in the sense used by the anti-digital argument.

Now, one could always be a real absolutist and argue that tape-trading is wicked as well. But that's a very extremist position; few people will agree with it. If that's the best they can do, then the pro-file-trading side has effectively positioned the other side as extremists, which makes further debate much easier.

I think every person who calls MP3 sharing "stealing" should be forced to commit to whether giving a mix CD to mom is OK or wicked; and if it's OK, then they have to acknowledge that so-called "stealing" is not always bad. With that on the table, there are other interesting moral dilemmas to explore, but the game is half-won right there.

Have to say it...

[hackstraw]

DUPE!

1. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/30/19 13227&from=rss
2. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/30/173922 6
3. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/131825 7

etc...

Re:Have to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... no? This isn't the same lawsuit moron.

ITS HANZOSAN!! MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey hanzo, we know its you.. why do you keep posting and suckering the moderators to mod you up?

Mods, but this faggot ass down. Look at his posting history, it's nothing but lame, banal postings. He used be known as HanzoSan, until we exposed his trites uninsightful posts, but now he's back.

Mod him down to oblivion.

Re:ITS HANZOSAN!! MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded yo momma's home directory.

I'm one of the 754.

[Moken]

I got hit at the University of Missouri, Rolla and let me tell you, I never saw it coming. I'm pretty computer literate (CS major that codes alot of low-level stuff)... I thought that I was being careful by staying within the school's system (Samba shares) but they still got it. They were watching inside the network. I don't know how on earth they managed to do that, we have a pretty strict network policy. In the meantime, they dragged through it. I got caught May 5th, 2005, didn't find out until July... never got an action date 'til August. It was awful... although I did start getting music via AllofMP3 (still shady?)

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

You might have had a rat Miner among you. Or a stooge among the administration. A Missouri Sunshine Act request asking for anything on cooperation agreements with copyright holders, what third parties are allowed access to the network, etc. should be in order. But they'd probably be able to dodge the request under the guise of "network security." Hope this doesn't screw you up -- and if the administration has let you off, you obviously don't want to be the one making any Sunshine Act requests. Good luck, and use USENET :).

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Anonymous Coward]

>I don't know how on earth they managed to do that, we have a pretty strict network policy.

What do you mean "I don't know how on earth they managed to do that"? Here is how it all likely went down:

RIAA: Hi, we want to monitor your network for thieves.
DEAN: No.
RIAA: Our pack of wild, hungry, ravenous lawyers says we can or we can sue you.
DEAN: Our network is your network.

Also, a "strict network policy" is only meant to protect the network from its users, not the other way around.

Finally: "being careful by staying within the school's system" is never careful. You should not trust a system you do not *COMPLETELY* control yourself. You might as well just stick a giant neon sign above your door.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[superyanthrax]

It's quite possible there is a bounty hunter for the RIAA on your network. Those are people who get paid by the RIAA to expose file-sharers. I know for certain there are some at my school (Caltech), so I'm very careful when using file sharing services on my network.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[dmaxwell]

Just curious here.

Have any of these "bounty hunters" ever been handed a good old fashioned country ass-whipping by his dorm buddies?

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day, these people really would get their collective asses kicked.

if they're that hard up for money, they should sell blood, or a kidney.

But to rat out a fellow student? Lowest form of life on earth. I mean, particularly since they're only helping the RIAA. They're not helping the artist, the school, nothing, but the the RIAA.

And they probably did it for $100. Tools.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[goldspider]

You say you got "caught", as if you believe you were doing something wrong?

Judging by all the rationalizations for copyright infringement listed on Slashdot every time the RIAA is mentioned, I can't imagine why you'd feel that way.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Eighen Indemnis]

I'm considering doing this with my two systems this year. One of them is the Linux box in the dorm and the other is the laptop I'd carry around. In this case, I'd be the only one with access to my shares. Was your share open to everyone? Or were there users for each person you wanted accessing it? Of course, if they sued me for accessing music I purchased from a computer I purchased to another computer I purchasd, I would flip shit.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

If one of these suits were to ever go to trial, wouldn't the bounty hunter's testimony be required? Talk about having a price on one's head. Hell, I'd contribute to a PayPal account to fund a lottery for a person who could guess the exact date of death for a pigfucker that would sit inside a campus network, log traffic, and rat fellow students out to the *AA.

That, and they probably wouldn't be able to testify anyway, having broken the usage requirements of the school which prohibit for-profit use, which bounty hunting definitely is.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[anthony_dipierro]

I'm surprised no one asked the key question: so, how much did you spend buying CDs in 2005?

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got caught masturbating yesterday. Sometimes choice of words matters. Most of the time, it doesn't.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[larry bagina]

if you were masturbating into the "secret sauce" then yes, "caught" is correct.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Zunni]

Wow that's a great question. Let's put the study to a live test...

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[(startx)]

I used to work for Computing and Information Services (CIS) when I was a student at UMR several years ago. The head of the department would routinely tell the RIAA and MPAA to f*ck off whenever they would make requests like that. We also had an unofficial policy of looking the other way in reguards to internal network traffic, and only cracked down those keeping the campus bandwidth utilization at 100%.

Sometime around 2003-2004 the old CIS director retired. The new guy (who was a freaking Civil Eng major) renamed it to IT, changed the way the way the whole department was organized, and instituted a metric shit-ton of new policies. Its way different than it used to be, and I wouldn't be suprised if the new guy INVITED the RIAA/MPAA to come in and snoop on students.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Sad. Not the way you want to run a university that tries to attract the best and the brightest.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Anonymous Coward]

At my university job, I have received job posting emails from the Universal Pictures company. They were looking for interns to "help stop piracy." This is most likely how they were able to penetrate university networks, and explains how they were able to find and sue students on i2hub.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Those providing that service to the copyright cartel should be expelled from school for violating the commercial use clause of the terms of their network access.

Re:I'm one of the 754.

[Tesla Tank]

You're right. However, they are pretty sure it will NOT ever go on trial. People will settle out of court and that's the end of it. If these suits start to go on trial, RIAA would be losing more money than before through lawyer fees, etc.

Karmic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll horde all the karma I want, all the karma in the world, and then with all that karma, I'll go get medieval on the RIAA/MPAA's ass.

This is insightful? Sadly, it's not.

[Svartalf]

You started out good...but then you had to screw it up by calling it "stealing".

As others have pointed out, it's not theft, it's INFRINGEMENT which is actually defined as a different crime on the books because IT IS ONE.

Here, let me illustrate for you...

If, for example, I were to take your computer away from you, you'd be deprived of the use of the same. This is STEALING .

If, for example, I were to make a copy of your magnum opus novel (if you were to write one...) without your permission and make a couple more copies to hand out to my friends, you're not deprived of the work or the use thereof. You might have been deprived of the financial rewards caused by the artificial scarcity of the same brought about by the Copyright you have on the work- but you can always get more people to sign off on your copies. In this instance, I've not stolen from you. I have INFRINGED upon your rights to control the production and distribution of your given work of art- which are artificial rights established for the People on behalf of the Government to further the arts.

The moment you got that wrong, any and all valid points you might have had went clean out the window- as you obviously don't have a clue about what IS and ISN'T the law in the first place. Is it Morally wrong? You damn betcha. Is it stealing? Not even close.

Futile discussion

[ScaryMonkey]

This is basically non-news at this point. If anyone was scared away from file sharing by the first lawsuits it's clear that dozens more have replaced them. It's painfully obvious that this tactic will never work.

Every time there's a post like this it's the same old back and forth about: "Those fascist bastards!" "What's wrong? It IS stealing." "It's not really stealing, it's copyright infringement, there's a difference..." We could sit here all day and debate the ethics of filesharing until we're blue in the face, and it will have exactly the same effect as these lawsuits. None. Filesharing has become a massive global phenomenon practiced by millions of people, and it just won't be quashed. By anything. I'm just waiting to see how music and entertainment adapt...

It's stealing and my panties are in a bunch!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh BOO fucking HOO!

RIAA is a useless greedy overpowerful entity, so to hell with their lawsuits and keep on sharing those files. This benefits ONLY RIAA, and barely the artists if even at all. So you think because some ink is scratched on some ridiculous piece of paper that makes it right? Some laws are complete shit, see the Patriot Act. Their existence does not mean they are right or deserve to be around. Maybe if the economy was not totally destroyed, see rising poverty levels report, then maybe there would be more comfort with lining the golden pockets of the greedy's already fat bank account.

BOO FUCKING HOO!

Can they be any more stupid

[Supp0rtLinux]

I just spent the last month downloading gigs and gigs of porn via LimeWire. No joke, I now have over 35Gb of porn. Yet, these guys are going after the music abusers??? I don't get it...

Oh, and just in case the RIAA or MPAA or some other -AA organization sees this and wants to come after me... well I was never read my rights. Sorry. Fine away.

PDA & Smartphone Optimized Sites
Replacing my laptop with a Treo

Re:Can they be any more stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that your website in your sig? If so it's interesting that you are a christian and still view porn. Oh well I guess God will forgive you, huh sinner? :P

Re:Can they be any more stupid

[larry bagina]

the good news is, hollywood has decided to make a movie abouut you. The bad news is, it's titled "40 year old virgin".

PS - you're a complete fucking (oops, wrong word) idiot. the fact that you "don't get it" should be clue 1. But then again, you "don't get it". And probably never will. Please eat shit and die.

Re:Can they be any more stupid

[Supp0rtLinux]

Um, actually it was a failed attempt at sarcasm (failed because it seems no one got it... think about it... if I had just downloaded gigs and gigs of porn, would I be so bold as to say so in a traceable forum?). I find it ironic that both the MPAA and RIAA come after the music and mainstream movie piraters (though mostly they go after those that are sharing the goods and not downloading them), but that they completely seem to ignore the *other* movie industry. The fact is, sad though it may be, the porn industry is one the few that's never hurting for money, lost money, suffered bankruptcies, etc. The RIAA and MPAA are always ranting about how CD and DVD prices have to go up to compensate for piracy and how much piracy hurts their industry (despite reports that show quite the contrary). You would think that if this was all a lot more than just some fluff and bunk that the porn industry would be just as anxious to pursue the pirates of their industry to protect their interests. Yet they don't...

Perhaps the RIAA is simply better at data analysis

[shark72]

"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

The study was no surprise. I've pirated music in the past. Today, I spend about $30 a month on the iTMS. My grandmother has never pirated music. She spends no money online for music. This is because she does not own a PC.

Folks who've used file sharing software tend to buy music because they are Internet-savvy and they like music. Copyright infringement is not a prerequisite for buying music online! The important corelations are having a computer, familiarity with the Internet, and an appreciation for getting music via their PC. The music industry can find plenty of people who fall into that category without also falling into the "putting thousands of files into their share directory" category that tends to make people ripe for legal action.

The record industry has acknowledged that they are using a "carrot and stick" approach toward curbing piracy. Apple has just sold their 50 millionth track, and the online music industry is still growing logarithmically. Their approach seems to be working just fine.

I am not a thief...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take copyrighted music, but I am a thief? I care no more for copyrighted music than non.

I am not a thief.

Am I the only one? No.

Who does take copyrighted music because it's copyrighted? Must be just a very few, far fewer than the amount of RIAA articles I read.

But I'm open to interpret other views on this...

lost sales

[pintomp3]

it's not about losing money, it's about losing control.

Re:lost sales

[Anonymous Coward]

Money is control. Ergo, it *is* about money. This is America, man. Come on.

So damages are what, $3 a month?

[gregor-e]

With Yahoo Music providing access to over 1 million songs for $5/month I would think the damages that RIAA can claim are limited to whatever share Yahoo would have passed onto them if these file-sharers had gone legit with a subscription. Or am I just being naive?

Re:So damages are what, $3 a month?

[globalar]

I see exactly what you are saying, but really there are three components to a heavier-than-market price fine/punishment:

1) deterrence. Your payment is bigger because "the society" wants you to know they mean business. If getting caught meant paying a "normal" price than there would be little difference between buying and infringement+getting caught. If fines were cheap and reasonable, people would start calculating the risk as "worth it". In fact, many individuals and groups already do.

2) subversion. You have subverted a government-protected property arrangement. It's fictional - in the sense of material goods - but very much "real" in legal terms. Therefore, the government deems your actions dangerous to the their arrangements and authority, not simply the value of a single transaction.

3) money talks. It communicates to everyone - the shareholders of media corporations, the public, and the criminal - that the law is serious and must be obeyed. People are impressed by money, and large fines impresses them a lot. Low fines, OTOH, actually breed indifference.

I happen to have disagreements with all of these, incidentally.

Re:So damages are what, $3 a month?

[AnObfuscator]

With Yahoo Music providing access to over 1 million songs for $5/month I would think the damages that RIAA can claim are limited to whatever share Yahoo would have passed onto them if these file-sharers had gone legit with a subscription. Or am I just being naive?

Well, not exactly. These people are being sued for their *distribution* of pirated music. So, if 1000 people downloaded tracks from the sharer, then that's 1000 $5 subscriptions that RIAA lost -- at least, that is what they claim in court. And that is how RIAA justifies such high payouts. It's not about the getting --- it's about the giving.

Re:So damages are what, $3 a month?

[gregor-e]

Even so, Yahoo Music lets you share tunes via Yahoo IM with any other Yahoo Music subscriber. The primary difference is that these culprits were not subscribers to a service like Yahoo music, and they were sharing tunes with other non-subscribers. So maybe damages were more like $3 * number of non-subscribers shared with per month. Still seems likely to be something in the hundreds of dollars, max.

Geek Science.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.""

Non-scientific poll that justifies my actions:==good.

Non-scientific poll that makes the KDE desktop look good:==good.

Anyone know why we're called geeks, again?

Re:This is insightful? Sadly, it's not.

[countchoc12]

mod parent up!

Actual vs. Statutory Damages

[Landaras]

IANAL. Yet. This is not legal advice.

You are right in that actual damages have not been shown, and that there is a good probability that these actual damages don't even exist in many of these cases.

However, copyright law is special in that the copyright holder has the option of pursuing statutory damages. As the name implies, these are damages assigned by statute (statute = law created by legislature). The relevant section of the law is pasted below, but these numbers are significant and are per work infringed.

Statutory damages are often elected because you don't have to go through the hassle of proving them; they are assumed for you by law.

- Neil Wehneman

*******
From Section 504 of http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

(c) Statutory Damages. -

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

Easy Solution.

[Famatra]

"That gives them the right to steal whatever they want then, right?"

Let's put the copyright length down to 5 seconds, then no more 'stealing'.

I might compromise and put it to 10 years but not a day more.

Woohoo! 14,000 so far!

[FlynnMP3]

Yes, I feel sorry for all those who got extorted by the RIAA. They are the few (soon not so few), the proud, the ones who will help change the system! The more lawsuits that come from those baffoons the more people will get pissed off and finally start giving a shit about how they are treated.

Obviously, strong arm business tactics are alive and well. They never really left you know. Every great change in technology brought about decades worth of suffering of the people while the boneheaded ones finally benefitted in the end! Fair? Nope, not in the slightest. Who said life was fair?

Puts a tear in me eye it does. *sniff*

-FlynnMP3

supply and demand factor not accounted

[erroneus]

One factor of supply and demand that is seemingly overlooked by all on the supply side is the demand for reasonable cost.

We are in the midst of another artificially high "fuel crisis" where any change in the weather, good or bad, somehow means they need to raise the price of fuel. If there was truly a supply problem, the profits of the companies on the supply side wouldn't be earning record high profits. In the US, this is an illegal pricing tactic and somehow it's not being prosecuted... maybe because the US president has strong interests in the oil industry. I recall the fuel crisis of about 20+ years ago and how it ended... and more importantly, WHY it ended. It ended when alternative fuels started to catch on -- specifically "gasahol." It was really soon after gasahol started flowing from the pumps that the fuel crisis came to an inexplicable end, but before that time, it didn't prevent the supply side from doing everything it could to rape its customers.

Back on topic, however, I see a demand for lower cost (read: better value) and the general responses we are seeing. We see what I consider to be "civil disobedience" even if it's technically not the correct expression for this situation. I don't consider it to be criminal as much as I consider it to be an expression that the supply side simply wants too much for something that is considered to have value... just not enough value to the people who would sooner get music this way.

The RIAA's hostile response will be the fuel of change... change they will not like. Just as gasahol started to threaten the fuel industry, independants and online trade will flourish at the RIAA's expense no matter HOW many victims they claim. There will be no "lawsuit into submission."

Let's Identify Fallacies!

[Anonymous Coward]

The part about "it is against the law to download music", appeals to the pragmatic side of nerds, and the part saying, "I like gin. I don't like paying for gin. When I go out to get gin, I don't steal it, despite my desire to have both my cash and my gin." appeals to the logical and rational side of nerds.

It is entirely possible to find rational and logical reasons for everything that the RIAA is doing. What is totally absent from the parent post is rationally explaining what the dissenters (the downloaders) are doing in relation to what the RIAA is doing. A person downloading 15 tracks of the latest Britney Spears CD likes Britney Spears obviously, maybe this person doesn't have the money to pay for the CD.

There are a handful of stereotypical downloader types. I won't go into them all here, but equating downloading music from the internet to going into the store and intentially stealing a physical object is an inherently flawed notion.

Whatever you darn well please?

[Infonaut]

If we were ruled by dictators who held mock elections every four years, how would you recommend fighting them? By participating in the polls? By voting with our dollars?

I'm not sure how this analogy applies to the RIAA and MPAA. They are not all-powerful, even among huge corporate interests, and certainly not in our government. Just because things are going their way right now doesn't mean that the slow mechanisms of representative government won't eventually force them to acquiesce.

Once the media company sells something to me then it is mine and I will do with it whatever I darn well please.

I doubt that even the most staunch advocate of fair use rights would say that the intent of copyright is to allow you to do whatever you please with copyrighted material.

I can't make photocopies of books then sell those photocopies, for example.

Based on the Grokster decision, when file sharing services are making money off of other people's copyrighted materials, and are obviously inducing people to use their service expressly to make money off of copyrighted materials, you're on the wrong side of the law.

Situations that fall short of obvious copyright violation and inducement to violate copyright are still open to legal interpretation. Right now the RIAA is suing the crap out of people not because they feel they can win the cases, but because they are trying to frighten people into submission.

The Congress has thus far been acting at the behest of the entertainment industry, but the courts aren't beholden to the legislature or the entertainment industry. They make their decisions in a rather different fashion. As Lessig wrote in his post-mortem of the Eldred case,

Kennedy in good faith wanted to be shown. I, idiotically, corrected his question. Souter in good faith wanted to be shown the First Amendment harms. I, like a math teacher, reframed the question to make the logical point. I had shown them how they could strike down this law of Congress if they wanted to. There were a hundred places where I could have helped them want to, yet my stubbornness, my refusal to give in, stopped me. I have stood before hundreds of audiences trying to persuade; I have used passion in that effort to persuade; but I refused to stand before this audience and try to persuade with the passion I had used elsewhere. It was not the basis on which a court should decide the issue.

The entertainment industry is obviously run by people who are trying to hold on to an outmoded business model, as you pointed out. But I'd argue that having or not having pity for them isn't really the point. The point is that taking music isn't necessarily the most effective way to fight the entertainment industry. Impatience with the slowness of the legislative and judicial systems is a tenuous argument for breaking the law, particularly when we're not exactly talking about stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[SilverspurG]

I can't make photocopies of books then sell those photocopies, for example.

File sharing is not reselling. There's no illegitimate monetary profit here.

The point is that taking music isn't necessarily the most effective way to fight the entertainment industry.</i>

The music was legally sold to a customer. That customer chose to share something which they bought ownership of. If the music industry wants to deal in rentals then they should make that clear at the point of sale.

As for fair use and copyright law: The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution. In this document, the rights are reserved to the individual authors and inventors. Rights are inalienable. You cannot sell or transfer your Constitutional rights. Admittedly, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of court cases where incompetent attorneys and incompetent judges have breached this natural law. But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.

What part of modern copyright law does anything to secure rights to the individual authors, inventors, and creators? At last glance, copyright law seems to do everything possible to give the established companies the upper hand in swindling those rights away.

Consider two statements: "I can sell my rights to RCA for $XYZ, which is enough to pay rent and buy food, or I can continue to take my chances at the local pub'n'grill and possibly be homeless in a few months."
"I can sell my rights to King George and his men for a pittance which will allow me to keep my farmland and my home, or I can resist and they can burn the whole thing to the ground."

Current copyright law is the newer, kinder, gentler extortion... and nothing more.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[rodgster]

>Impatience with the slowness of the legislative >and judicial systems is a tenuous argument for >breaking the law, particularly when we're not >exactly talking about stealing a loaf of bread >for your starving family.

I can just see people telling this to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement.

BTW I don't download music either legally or by infringing copyright. But I am sick to death of mega corps and mega corp associations extorting money from people, buying legislation which is patently absurd and generally abusing the legal system.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[Infonaut]

I can just see people telling this to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement.

I wholeheartedlly agree that civil disobedience is required in certain circumstances. But do you equate not being able to share music over a P2P network with race discrimination?

I'm not sure what the threshold should be for illegal action, but I'm not convinced that fighting the RIAA over copyright merits it.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[Magnium]

File sharing is not reselling. There's no illegitimate monetary profit here.

Dont you think the missing cost to listen to the music is actually the monetary profit ?

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[E Galois]

"Listen, strange women cryin' over distributin' music is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical RIAA ceremony." -- apologies to Dennis

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[gregoryb]

But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.

That's quite a bit to ask, seeing how SCOTUS doesn't even do so.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[rodgster]

Personally I don't give a crap about music. I barely listen to am radio when I'm driving.

I think we need to reform the role of corporations. and the legal system. When Disney can "buy" absurd copywrong laws, everything is patented and the only the way to win in the legal system is to settle (unless you have at your disposal assets equivalent to a large mega corp), something is terribly wrong.

I don't think this is what are founding fathers envisioned when they created this country. Corporations didn't exist then. IIRC that entity was created in the 30's.

Now to venture off-topic:

The one thing I think that would be a step in the right direction is if corporations were no longer legally recognized as a separate entity but the product of actions by the CEO, Board of directors, etc and they are held liable for the criminal and civil misdeeds of the corporation.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[westlake]

File sharing is not reselling. There's no illegitimate monetary profit here

The NET Act (No Electronic Theft) of 1997 criminalized unlicensed, non-profit, re-distribution. WWW.CYBERCRIME.GOV The Robin Hood defense is dead.

The music was legally sold to a customer. That customer chose to share something which they bought ownership of. If the music industry wants to deal in rentals then they should make that clear at the point of sale.

You don't own the music, you own the disk. That has been the law in the U.S. since the piano roll days of Irving Berlin, Victor Herbert and John Philip Sousa. The Birth of ASCAP 1914

You want a license for broadcast, public performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it separately.

But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.

Americans have never been comfortable with natural law as a guiding principle in a court of law. They expect legal decisions and debate to have a solid anchorage in a written constitution, a treaty, a statute. You are unlikely to ever hear a natural law argument made in an American court.

The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution

Treaties have equal status with the Constitution, and can significantly expand federal power, something to think about when considering copyright law.

Current copyright law is the newer, kinder, gentler extortion... and nothing more

...and your solution is to subvert the right of every author to profit from the distribution of his own work? I think I'll take my stand with the pirate whose thievery is untainted by self-righteousness

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[SilverspurG]

The NET Act (No Electronic Theft) of 1997 criminalized unlicensed, non-profit, re-distribution.

Where does the Federal Government derive any authority to enforce this? I'm reading the Constitution, and no where do I see the right to control the distribution of copyrighted works. If you want to claim interstate commerce I direct you to the 9th Amendment in which enumeration of the Constitution to expand the powers of the Federal Government is specifically prohibited.

So, regardless of the impotent puppet court system's rulings on the matter, this act is unconstitutional.

You don't own the music, you own the disk.

Good. Then I'm free to make copies of the disk or do with it whatever I please. If the original author or inventor or creator takes issue with it then they're free to file their claim in court as the copyright holder. If anyone else claims to be the official copyright holder then this is no longer under Federal jurisdiction. The Constitution, with respect to exclusive rights to inventions and creations, recognizes only the original author, inventor, or creator.

The RIAA and the other holders of copyright entitlements can collectively go suck an egg unless they find a state or locality which recognizes them in their respective charters. If not then, per the Constitutional default, the rights remain with the individuals.

You want a license for broadcast, public performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it separately.

That's not recognized as under Federal jurisdiction and, to be fair, I've not seen it in the charters of any of the states in which I've lived.

Again, no interstate commerce bull-roar. Just because no one adheres to the 9th Amendment doesn't mean that it was stricken from the Constitution. If anything it's a blatant testament to the illegitimacy of the current government.

Treaties have equal status with the Constitution, and can significantly expand federal power, something to think about when considering copyright law.

Treaties are between nations and do not infringe on the rights of the people, as the rights of the people are protected first and foremost by the Constitution. Treaties cannot expand the role or jurisdiction of the Federal government. I don't know how you think you can justify that.

and your solution is to subvert the right of every author to profit from the distribution of his own work?

A complete disconnect from file-sharing. The original authors and inventors aren't involved in the legal process anymore. In many cases they don't even "legally" own their rights (which is itself an unConstitutional prospect).

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that every law is legitimate by default. Newsflash: It's not. If it's not authorized in a charter document such as the US Constitution, then it's no better than mafia rule of force.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[Pofy]

>You don't own the music, you own the disk.
>That has been the law in the U.S. since the
>piano roll days of Irving Berlin, Victor Herbert
>and John Philip Sousa. The Birth of ASCAP 1914

You have missunderstood the law then. Or alternatively you are mixing up two different ownerships, to own the copyright ot a work and to own copies of a work. They are different and have nothing to do with each other and one does not imply the other. Check the US copyright law for example, 202:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000202----000-.html

So saying "you don't own the music" really means little, one can own the copyright to some music and one can own copies of the music. Two different things. So, while I don't own the copyright, I can still own copies of the music. When you buy a CD, you own a copy of the music (the CD) but still don't own any copyright to it. The CD *is* the copy of the music. It is a material copy of it. Check 101 for definitions of a copy (in US copyrigth law):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html

So saying that "you dont own the music" is really wrong, you do, a copy of it.

>You want a license for broadcast, public
>performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it
>separately.

Partly correct. As noted in for example 202, transfewr of ownership to a copy, does not mean there is any transfer of copyright, hence by owning a copy, you don't get any of the exclusivr rights of the copyright holder. So indeed, you can't broadcast or make a public performance. However, you can resdistribute THAT specific copy of yours (you can't make new ones and distribute them though). The right to distribute is actually a right that is tied to individual copies and after the first distribution it is lost (for that particular copy), for example seen in:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000109----000-.html

So to redistribute a specific copy, no you don't need any permision.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[westlake]

You have missunderstood the law then.

I don't see where we differ here. In 1914 the question was whether public performance rights were included in a tavern owner's purchase of a music roll. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not.

Re:Whatever you darn well please?

[westlake]

So, regardless of the impotent puppet court system's rulings on the matter, this act is unconstitutional

The Supreme Court as The Court of the Constitution is neither impotent or a puppet.

I'm reading the Constitution, and no where do I see the right to control the distribution of copyrighted works. If you want to claim interstate commerce I direct you to the 9th Amendment

I don't need to point to the Commerce Clause. The federal government has the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to enforce rights granted under the Constitution. Clause 18. Necessary and Proper Clause

Prepare to assimilate...

[cnerd2025]

...resistance is futile. The RIAA, though it may at one time have had good intentions (and a neccesity to exist) is now obsolete. The internet has changed EVERYTHING. Folks who said 10 years ago "I ordered books on Amazon.com" and thought it would be the end-all-be-all, obviously they were wrong. They didn't see it coming. The RIAA "ain't seen nothin' yet." We could even find a lawyer willing to represent us and sue the pants off of the RIAA. Wait, they aren't wearing any; they have been too busy under the covers with the government...

RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[The Master Control P]

• "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Abba Eban
• "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H L Mencken
• "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Sadly, the RIAA continues to defy reality and believe that suing its customers will bring them back (damn, how many times you gotta BOMB people to make 'em stop HATING you?) when people are faced with an alternative source of music (illegal or not) that is more convenient, better suited to getting them what they want, and cheaper (either free or $1.00 a song).

Unfortunately, I doubt that even the RIAA is so stupid or stupefyingly myopic that they can't see this, so I conclude that it's not about money. They want to be able to control you. They want control what you can listen to. They want to be able to stop anything new they can't pimp to enrich themselves.

They are scared to death of the internet. They hate the idea that I can could pay $12-14 for 12-14 tracks of music that I know I like, as opposed to 2 good songs and 12 pieces of filler because that would force them to put out the effort to create more good music. They hate the idea of something that can be replicated with no physical effort, because those who make money off pressing CDs will be destroyed by it if they don't adapt. They are scared of change, and intent on pulling as many people down as they can.

There's no question that the RIAA will be destroyed by the Internet. The only question is how many people with will take down with them.

Re:RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[elronxenu]

Absolutely. There are several aspects to the control they want.

They want to control the creators of music. They do this by locking artists into a certain number of albums, getting copyright, owning back-catalogues, etc.

They want to control the distribution of music. The Internet is disrupting their distribution model by showing how ineffective it is now.

They want to control the consumers (e.g. with DRM and copy-protected CDs).

And they want to control the licensing agreements. This is why they hate Creative Commons.

Re:RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[Froggy]

damn, how many times you gotta BOMB people to make 'em stop HATING you?

The RIAA hate us because we are free. No, wait. The RIAA hate us because we get our *music* for free.

Re:RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[shark72]

"They are scared to death of the internet. They hate the idea that I can could pay $12-14 for 12-14 tracks of music that I know I like, as opposed to 2 good songs and 12 pieces of filler because that would force them to put out the effort to create more good music."

I've lost you here. The ability to pick just the songs I want is one of the cool things about iTunes and the rest of the online stores. Lots of other people must agree; Apple has sold 50 million tracks this way and the record companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Why would they be scared?

"They hate the idea of something that can be replicated with no physical effort, because those who make money off pressing CDs will be destroyed by it if they don't adapt."

You're correct that the people who own the factories that press CDs might see declining sales as the market shifts from physical media to online purchases, but it's typically not the record labels who own the plants. The record labels will be happy to sell you a track in any format they like -- a sale is a sale.

"There's no question that the RIAA will be destroyed by the Internet."

As I mentioned above: 50 million songs sold by iTunes. And the rate at which consumers are buying tracks online is only getting bigger. The RIAA stumbled around for years trying to get online purchasing to work. It took Apple, Napster and other resellers to show them how to do it, but it's certainly looking like online music sales are the best thing that've happened to the record industry in... well, forever.

How is the Internet going to turn around and destroy them, and when do you think this will happen?

Re:RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[The Master Control P]

There have been several articles recently that the RIAA thinks that $1 per song is not enough, and they are considering forcing Apple to either raise the price or not sell songs from them. They probably want it to cost $6 per song, on par with a $12/CD that's got 2 tracks you like...

The reason that the internet will destroy the RIAA is because it makes them obsolete much as the airplane made the battleship obsolete and steam made animals obsolete. The RIAA was originally formed to unify the 14-something different standards for recording information on LPs. Now it represents the recording studios who you used to need to record music, the media companies you used to need to get any exposure, and the meatspace retail stores you used to need to sell your music. Home recording devices have been around for a while. Now, the Internet makes unnecessary and replaces the marketing, advertizing, and distributing functions of the RIAA. You can record your own music and distribute it over the internet. Charge a reasonable price, offer free sample tracks, create a website. Eventually, bands will realize that they don't need any middleman taking a cut to sell their music to people.

The RIAA knows that all their power over your music will be destroyed by this, and they're thrashing at anyone they can trying to stop it. Nothing's working.

Re:RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[shark72]

"Now, the Internet makes unnecessary and replaces the marketing, advertizing, and distributing functions of the RIAA. You can record your own music and distribute it over the internet. Charge a reasonable price, offer free sample tracks, create a website. Eventually, bands will realize that they don't need any middleman taking a cut to sell their music to people."

Thank you for clarifying this. The thing is, I've seen many Slashdotters say the same thing for well on five years now. Meanwhile, the record industry is just gaining more and more and more momentum on the Internet. To be sure, indie labels and self-published musicians are making good use of the 'net, but so are the majors. It's simply another advertising, marketing and distribution medium to them.

Anyway, you said "eventually" -- fine. Out of curiousity, do you have a guess at when you think this will happen? Within five years? Ten? There are no right or wrong answers here... just interested in your personal estimate of when the Internet will make major labels obsolete.

Re:RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[Godwin O'Hitler]

"How is the Internet going to turn around and destroy them, and when do you think this will happen?"

How about it will happen when this happens:

[Big non-RIAA company with initiative] persuades [selection of popular artists] to forget working with the labels and deal directly with them to distribute their songs over the Internet for a higher cut of the takings.

Fifty cents a tune, twenty five to the artist, twenty five to the distributor. Both get 3 dollars for a 12-song album. Distributor is better off, artist is better off, customer is better off, so who needs labels? Labels are for putting on boxes.

Re:RIAA would do well to listen to history.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... damn, how many times you gotta BOMB people to make 'em stop HATING you?..."

I never read anything more succinct in my entire life.

More likely to die

[The Angry Artist]

Yes, the RIAA sues more. Nothing's really going to change in terms of how much is being pirated, but when the entertainment industries are doing the talking, facts only get in the way of what they're saying.

This is essentially just the RIAA making an example out of people. You'd be more likely to die from external injuries* than be sued.

*Yes, the article is 4,000 people old by now, but I doubt the stastics have changed significantly.

big diff between phys and IP

[kizzbizz]

Anybody who thinks that stealing a physcial CD is the same as stealing the intellectual property behind it is an absolutle stone cold idiot.

It is literally, literally, comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit, both are sweet, but they look and taste COMPLETLEY different. You wouldn't call them the same thing. Those people who are comparing it to people stealing a car/CD/etc. are the same people who believe that the RIAA is telling the truth when they say they've lost "xxx Billion Dollars in Sales" from those internet pirates.

Re:big diff between phys and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Which still doesn't make it legal or right, either morally or ethically.

"Not the same thing"
"Can't stop people from doing it"
"RIAA are liars"
Anytime you see someone make a big deal about these excuses, you know they are excusing their own complete lack of morals.

Re:big diff between phys and IP

[mckennage]

It is literally, literally, comparing apples to oranges.

I assume that by literally you mean the opposite: figuratively.

Besides, it's probably more like comparing apple sauce to apple juice. Stealing either one still (indirectly) cuts into the profits of farmers, just like stealing either form of music (indirectly) cuts into what the artist gets.

Re:big diff between phys and IP

[kizzbizz]

"just like stealing either form of music (indirectly) cuts into what the artist gets"

Based merely on the assumption that you would've bought the music had you not downloaded it. It's fodder for a million scientific articles, I know, and nobody can really effectivley argue either way. But dont forget, assumptions make an ass out of you and me.

Re:big diff between phys and IP

[zakezuke]

Which still doesn't make it legal or right, either morally or ethically.

Legal!=Moral
Moral!=right
Ethical!=right

Anytime you see someone make a big deal about these excuses, you know they are excusing their own complete lack of morals.

Assuming someone else lacks morals when their ethics are different than yours isn't right even though it's perfectly legal to be deluded into thinking that somehow your code of conduct makes you a better person.

If you are a copyright holder, you have every right to choose how you want your material copied. This would include whether or not you want radio play, tape/cd/vinyl sales, or whether to allow others to copy your music via P2P.

Downloading something off a p2p system might be wrong, it might even be considered unethical or immoral, and could be illegal. But it is also wrong for people like your self to deny copyright holders the choice by repeating the brainwashing rhetoric without any regard to their rights under the law. It would seem you too lack a certain level of ethics. So did the RIAA when they decided to sue the Girl Scouts for singing Puff the Magic Dragon around the campfire.

The best thing you can do, as a fan of music, is to find out who supports P2P, and show your support by obeying their desire by sharing or not sharing. At the end of the day each dollar is a vote... make them count. Buy a shirt, buy a bumpersticker... and take one step to change the world. Perhaps then morality = legal = right.

Re:big diff between phys and IP

[tepples]

If you are a copyright holder, you have every right to choose how you want your material copied.

Problem is that the major copyright owners of music have questionably legitimate tactics available to them against other copyright owners. A music publisher can sue an independent songwriter and any artist who performs her music, who typically cannot finance a legal defense, claiming that the song is derivative of a song owned by the publisher, and the publisher can win six- or seven-figure damages even if both sides agree that the copying was an accident. See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton. Read it and weep.

[Rights under copyright] would include whether or not you want radio play

Hypothetical: Given that I am the copyright owner of a musical work and a sound recording and I want my work to be played on commercial FM radio, where do I start?

Re:big diff between phys and IP

[zakezuke]

Hypothetical: Given that I am the copyright owner of a musical work and a sound recording and I want my work to be played on commercial FM radio, where do I start?

College radio?

Re:Why? Demographics

[slughead]

Of course they buy more music! The people who buy the most music are the same ones who pirate the most because they're in the same demographic!

Linking the two is OK, but saying that people who pirate more tend to buy more BECAUSE they pirate is really a huge error in logic.

They probably steal AND buy more for the same reason: they like music.

I'm not saying this as an outsider looking in, either.

Stupidity in propaganda knows no end, it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever been to a library?

Have you ever picked up a promotional pre-release of chapters from a book?

Ever borrow a book from a friend?

Ever used a xerox machine to copy a page for reference?

Ever seen a freaking movie preview?!?!

Guess what, you just committed the EXACT SAME act tht p2p networks allow: the redistribution of IDEAS and CONCEPTS.

It is a simple fact of the business that "buzz" and free products DIRECTLY EQUAL increased sales of the same media. You create "buzz" through advertising, name recognition, and WORD OF MOUTH (the acknowledged best way of getting publicity). By giving away free copies or previews of a work, or allowing it to enter the library system for wide-scale lending, you create fans who will spread toe word of the work. Many of those who experience the work will want to OWN a copy for themselves, for the personal satisfaction of OWNERSHIP. In the end you make far more sales by "pirate" acts such as after-market lending and duplication than you would ahve made had you not allowed these activities.

Freaking Business 101, folks. All the **AA is doing with these waves of customer-hatred is driving away customers, since "buzz" can ALSO be negative. People are mentally associating the **AA corporations with evil and bully-tactics, and purposefully avoiding patronizing them due to this. So, with sliding sales looming ahead, the **AA decides to try and ramp up profits by doing MORE of the very acts that are CAUSING them to lose sales.

And this does not even remotely touch on the legal concept of "effective repeal", lol.

Do the executives in the **AA get lobotomies before joining, or is it part of the health plan?

Re:Stupidity in propaganda knows no end, it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

Four of your five "examples" are useless:

Have you ever been to a library? Yes. They track borrowings and pay a royalty to publishers per book borrowing.

Have you ever picked up a promotional pre-release of chapters from a book? Yes. This is marketing, done with the consent of the creator.

Ever used a xerox machine to copy a page for reference? Yes. This is fair use. As cited within the laws of copyright.

Ever seen a freaking movie preview?!?! Yes. This is marketing, done with the consent of the creator.

Lobotomies - you were saying?

Re:Stupidity in propaganda knows no end, it seems

[Macadamizer]

Three of your four examples are 100% correct.

Have you ever been to a library? Yes. They track borrowings and pay a royalty to publishers per book borrowing.

Libraries (at least in the U.S.) may track borrowings, but if they do, it's not to pay royalties. A library can loan a book or CD or DVD for free, just like I can loan a book or CD or DVD to a friend for free. No royalties anywhere. Blockbuster and other video rental stores likewise do not have to pay any royalties on their rentals -- once they (or you or I or anyone else) has purchased a DVD or VHS tape, they can give it away or rent it without further involvement from the copyright holder.

Nobody, however -- you, I, Blockbuster or the library -- has the right to make copies of the book, CD or DVD for distribution without permission.

Everything else you said was absolutely right, just thought I would clear up that one point.

you know what screw it...

[atarione]

I'm not going to buy one more CD this year.

Fuck teh RIAA.

(btw last year RIAA I purchased about 35~ or so CD's)

my disgust with the system and general quality of many of the current releases already had me buying less this year (about 10 or so about)

but not one more this year.

hope you RIAA Pricks are happy.

Re:you know what screw it...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what i give up downloading illegal music im tired of running from the riaa

I Give Myself Up
My IP Adress is 127.0.0.1 Ill Be Waiting For You With My Hardrive

Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

Of course we should share everything, right? Why the hell not? It's not like music and movies costs time and money to create.

    How about this: one of you sharers out there go make a record or movie.

    Try selling copies of it. Online, or in a physical store. At a price of your choosing.

    Now, I'll start pirating your work and sell it for $0.0001. Or I'll even start duplicating it free of charge for everyone.

    Uploading a 1:1 copy of your work to *senet, where it will be propagated around the world, in digital form, costs me next to nothing.

    And fuck you if you're too much of a noob to secure your product, right?

    No wait, we hate DRM too, so you can't secure your product and expect the Slashdot hypocrites to pay.

    Seriously, you think this is ok? It might not be stealing, but it's WRONG.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[Catamaran]

I see it as a battle between consumers and monopolistic corporations. I see it as taking back that which was stolen from us. Sure, innocent people are going to get hurt, especially if they form alliances with the enemy. I pay artists directly, if that makes you feel any better.

Many who share your attitude seem to think that those of us on the other side simply want a free ride. Well I'm doing extremely well financially and I don't need a free ride. And I never download music because I'm already too busy to listen to the music I've already paid for.

If I'm a hypocrite, then what are you, a corporate lacky? No? I guess this name calling isn't as fun as you thought it was.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

>I see it as a battle between consumers and monopolistic corporations.

  Yes. Exactly. That's why I haven't been to a movie theater in 2 years, and refuse to pay for cable tv.

>I see it as taking back that which was stolenfrom us.

  What was stolen, exactly? The songs and movies the companies paid to produce? I know how they have shitty contracts and bilk the artistes, and how Disney profits from centuries-old public domain stories, but the fight needs to be taken to the voting box.

  Piracy is not doing the hardworking creators any favors.

>I pay artists directly, if that makes you feel any better.

    Touche. It's a good thing to do, but how many follow your example?

>Many who share your attitude seem to think that those of us on the other side simply want a free ride.

  If you read the comments from those defending piracy, it's pretty obvious that they've never tried making a living from creating intellectual property. Or for that matter, have simple respect for the rights of content creators.

    Want to pirate stuff? Fine. But don't say you're helping to liberate the creators. They need $$$, not words.

>If I'm a hypocrite, then what are you, a corporate lacky?

  A pirate. But I don't try to justify it. I just want shit for free.

    I just can't stand hypocrites who want to pretend that they're doing something noble when they are simply leeching.

>No? I guess this name calling isn't as fun as you thought it was.

    Yes it was. Got your attention, right? Need people here to wake up and start having real discussions about piracy instead of hiding behind vague legal terms.

    It's not stealing. Ok. In the leter of the law, it's not stealing. But if someone did that to your
  livelyhood, would you want to break their kneecaps? I would.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[sdornan]

You actually think that anyone except the major records companies and maybe the artists on the Billboard Top 100 make any money off CD sales (assuming they have a major label)? Hah.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

Wow. Your knee jerked so hard I heard it popping.

    Of course I know about what you brought up...read what I wrote about record companies bilking the artistes.

    Yes, I've read the Steve Albini and Courtney Love tracts.

    What I was saying is, piracy on top of that sure as fuck doesn't help the already suffering content creators.

    And what was your point anyway? Piracy supporter? Or what?

    Or are you one of those "New Business Model" people? With pie-in-the-sky ideas about making money by offering content for free?

    It's peanuts compared to what the record companies are used to making, and they're not interested.

    And gigging for money is mostly bullshit for small time bands. They might make enough for gas money if they're lucky.

    And quality instruments, studio time, and producers/sound techs don't come cheap.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[LividBlivet]

how about this: I stumble upon your work on P2P, like it and go buy the CD?

go chase 12yo girls and die in prison HH.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

>how about this: I stumble upon your work on P2P, like it and go buy the CD?

    And what gives you the right to do so ("sampling " my work off p2p, that is)?

    Note how you're using me as the content creator in your example?

    Try phrasing it this way:

    >how about this: you stumble upon mine work on P2P, like it and go buy the CD?

    Are you still cool with it? Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

    You can go sample albums at a shop, from a friend, at a library, or even buy and return an album from a store. But you choose to leech it, right?

      Face it, you just want a free ride. And that makes you a hypocrite.

>go chase 12yo girls and die in prison HH.

  Is your argument so weak that you feel the need to attack my nick? Have you actually read the book?

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[BorderlineThreat]

You know there are plenty of people here that give away thier created works, whether fiction, art, code, or whatever else, for free, right? You're postiong on Slashdot, so I assume you've heard of the GPL, at least.

People were producing works of art without the incentive of copyright long before it exsisted. Art is being created without regard to copyright while it exists, and they'll still be created when it's gone, too.

The **AA's copyright-supported business model has been outdated by new technology, and nothing can save it now. The effective nil cost of digital reproduction has destroyed the market for thier services, period. New content producers more adapted to the new situation will simply take thier place.

Regardless of the **AA's attempts to prop up thier profits in the face of the inevitable, it's useless, and these strong-arm tactics only serve to make myself, and many others, care even less about copyright laws.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

> You know there are plenty of people here that give away thier created works, whether fiction, art, code, or whatever else, for free, right?

    Yes. More power to them. However, I don't recall
the member corporations of the RIAA/MPAA stating that they're in it for the art.

>You're postiong on Slashdot, so I assume you've heard of the GPL, at least.

    Yes I have. In case you're not aware, the RIAA/MPAA do not release their works under the GPL.

    So, your point is?

>People were producing works of art without the incentive of copyright long before it exsisted. Art is being created without regard to copyright while it exists, and they'll still be created when it's gone, too.

    Yes, I agree absolutely. But you're skirting the issue -- how does any of this excuse pirating material protected under current laws?

    How does the act of piracy empower the content creators working under RIAA/MPAA?

>The **AA's copyright-supported business model has been outdated by new technology, and nothing can save it now. The effective nil cost of digital reproduction has destroyed the market for thier services, period. New content producers more adapted to the new situation will simply take thier place.

    Ah yes, the old buggy-whip maker argument. Any bright suggestions on how exactly you make money when everyone rips off your shit for free?

    Can you enlightened me as to how to become more "adapted"?

>Regardless of the **AA's attempts to prop up thier profits in the face of the inevitable, it's useless, and these strong-arm tactics only serve to make myself, and many others, care even less about copyright laws.

    Great. I don't care about the copyright laws either.

    But, what about the content creators? You still haven't addressed exactly how they are to be compensated.

    Some vague mumblings about donations won't do. We need to see serious $$$ before you start getting quality content.

    Any idea how much it costs to create an anime flick? 2 guys working off PayPal donations won't cut it.

    Do you have any valid points at all, or are you just defending piracy because, deep down inside, you want free shit?

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[SilverspurG]

how does any of this excuse pirating material protected under current laws?

If my friend buys a CD then the CD was legally bought and sold. If it was legally bought and sold then ownership was trasnferred. If he owns it then he can legally share it with me.

There is no secret that CDs are easily ripped to a hard drive and shared over a network. This is not a surprise. If the media companies feel they're getting a raw deal they're free to screen their customers, raise the price of a CD, or make an attempt at producing an affordable and long-lived player with custom hardware encryption.

Whatever it is, there is one thing which stands true: No more grousing about the profit margin after the point of sale. No one's forcing these people to sell CDs to every 10-year old with $15. No one's forcing these billionaire media moguls to be in the media business. If they don't like it they're free to leave. No one has a gun to their head to force them to stay in the boardroom.

Do whatever it takes, but do it before the point of sale. After the point of sale, get over it. Face reality. The product was legally bought and sold and there no longer is any claim to dictating terms of use.

If anything, file-sharing gives the media companies a taste of what they're doing to the artists: "This is the way the world works, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Now either continue on or get out of the game. You can't fight us, and you sure as hell can't win."

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[arkhan_jg]

Hmm. Let's take your bluff. I'll put my music on magnatune, and give the copies away for free *myself*. Yet artists also sell higher-quality versions of their music on magnatune, and presumably make a profit. After all, a number of artists have put 2nd albums on there, and the site is growing.

Odd, that.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

> If my friend buys a CD then the CD was legally bought and sold. If it was legally bought and sold then ownership was trasnferred. If he owns it then he can legally share it with me.

    Yes, I agree with this point completely.

    But now, your friend can duplicate the data to 10,000 locations at little cost other than a fast connection and a computer.

    Perfect copies. We're not talking about the 80s and VCRs anymore.

    What is a reasonable amount of sharing? Is it really sharing when you have a separate copy of the CD from your friend? After all, now both you and him can enjoy the work for the price of paying for it only once.

    Not just you, but the rest of the planet in fact. I don't know, but that seems wrong.

>There is no secret that CDs are easily ripped to a hard drive and shared over a network. This is not a surprise.

  Yes, the media companies are totally incompetent in this respect. But does it give you carte blanche to pirate everything they create?

  Also, when someone pirates and think they're doing the content creator a favor, I take issue with it.

  It's not about the piracy, it's about the hypocrisy I see on Slashdot regarding piracy.

>No one's forcing these people to sell CDs to every 10-year old with $15.

  By the same token, nobody is forcing pro-piracy
Slashdotters to buy these CDs. If they don't want to pay $15, they can do without. Or pirate. I'm cool with that.

  But these same Slashdotters will talk trash bout the "crap that media corps produce..." Guess what,
you are the ones lapping it up.

>Face reality. The product was legally bought and sold and there no longer is any claim to dictating terms of use.

  You and I both know that RIAA/MPAA's greed is bottomless. The only way to hurt them is to ignore
them and shut your wallet.

>If anything, file-sharing gives the media companies a taste of what they're doing to the artists:

  Well, I'm not sure if 2 wrongs make a right. If you're for the artistes:

  1. Push for more sane copyright laws in your country (I'm presuming you're an US citizen)

  2. Stop paying for RIAA/MPAA content. That means no cable tv, no cinema flicks, no major label music, no major studio dvd. In short, a total boycott. Deny them mindshare.

  3. No compromises. If you say, "I pirate because MPAA/RIAA..." then you're making excuses. If you say
  "I pirate because I don't like paying for things," I'm right alongside you.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[EzInKy]

Seriously, you think this is ok? It might not be stealing, but it's WRONG.


Whether something's right or wrong or legal or illegal doesn't really matter when enough people don't give a damn.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

That's all fine and dandy. But see, the artistes on Magnatune WANT to give away samples for free, right? Most other big label artistes don't. Simple as that. You should respect their wishes and rights as copyright holders.

    All in all, you haven't really answered my questions at all. The above has little to do with the issue of piracy.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

Oh yes. Mob rules eh. Are you looting in New Orleans now by any chance? Suppose shooting and eating little girls became fashionable tomorrow? That would make it a-ok huh?

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[EzInKy]

Oh yes. Mob rules eh. Are you looting in New Orleans now by any chance? Suppose shooting and eating little girls became fashionable tomorrow? That would make it a-ok huh?

Yes, mob rules when the mob refuses to be ruled. If the majority of people refuse to obey a law despite attempts by the government to enforce it then the law is in fact ineffective. I think some sort of compromise will eventually be reached, not unlike the compromise with marijuana.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[humberthumbert]

>the law is in fact ineffective.

  So why hasn't the law been repealed? Because of stinking corporate lobbist money, right?

  And where did the money come from? From the same public (and some Slashdotters) who grumble about the RIAA/MPAA's prices, but are too weak to vote with their wallets.

  That's why things are the way they are; most people are happy to be suckers.

> not unlike the compromise with marijuana.

    Please do not equate the marijuana trade with piracy. Most marijuana growers and sellers presumably get at least a few dollars for their efforts.

    Content creators who have had their shit pirated get fuck all.

    I can't magically transport and mass produce marijuana without a large amount of effort.

    Piracy? I just need to click on a few buttons.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[2008]

Look, it's easy. You get people to pay you to make the movie. People who want to see it will pay, see all the money they raised for Star Trek: Enterprise for instance. Once the technique goes mainstream it can only get easier - assuming you can impress people that something you create will be worth watching.

Profiting from controlling distribution is being made increasingly difficult by technology, irrespective of everyone on the internet going to hell or not. But getting paid to create cannot be technologically circumvented, it's where a lot of things will probably end up.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[tepples]

You know there are plenty of people here that give away thier created works, whether fiction, art, code, or whatever else, for free, right?

You know there are plenty of major copyright owners that sue people who create works, on grounds that the major copyright owner's work was subconsciously copied into the alleged infringer's work, right?

The **AA's copyright-supported business model has been outdated by new technology

Not yet. The music played on school buses is still RIAA music.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[tepples]

But these same Slashdotters will talk trash bout the "crap that media corps produce..." Guess what, you are the ones lapping it up.

There's no alternative. If I'm a minor child on a school bus, I hear RIAA music on the way to and from school. I can't bring my own MP3 player loaded with independent music because the school system has deemed MP3 players "disruptive electronic devices," to be confiscated on entry to school property.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[EzInKy]

You can duplicate marijuana by growing it, the same as any other plant. Still, people do buy it because it's a hell of a lot easier than getting their "fix" by growing it. The same goes for their "intellectual property" fix. People want it so they are going to get it.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[Catamaran]

What was stolen, exactly?

Lots of stuff. Old movies for example. I love the movies from the 30s and 40s, and by all rights people should be able to watch them for free. But Disney lobbied congress and got that taken away from us.

A pirate. But I don't try to justify it. I just want shit for free.
I just can't stand hypocrites who want to pretend that they're doing something noble when they are simply leeching.

You make the mistake of assuming that everyone else shares your own low moral standards. What are you doing here? Are you just a troll? Are you doing some sneaky devil's advocate thing? I honestly cannot figure you out.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[BorderlineThreat]

You know there are plenty of major copyright owners that sue people who create works, on grounds that the major copyright owner's work was subconsciously copied into the alleged infringer's work, right?

What does that have to do with anything? That certainly doesn't negate the point that people are creating original works explictly without regard to copyright.

Not yet. The music played on school buses is still RIAA music.

So? The scarcity that allows them to charge for it has been destroyed by the emergence of near-costless digital reproduction. Period. Even if they closed up shop today, musicians, writers, and artists would still be producing and distributing thier works, and those works would simply become more popular in the new market.

It's almost a cliche; the RIAA and MPAA are dead, they just haven't realized it yet. And all things considered, this is gonna be good for the creative landscape in the end.

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[tepples]

What does that have to do with anything?

Lawsuits alleging subconscious infringement of copyrighted music put a chilling effect on some people who would write and publish music, just as lawsuits against file sharers put a chilling effect on file sharing to some extent.

the RIAA and MPAA are dead, they just haven't realized it yet. And all things considered, this is gonna be good for the creative landscape in the end.

Are you sure that the RIAA labels' death throes, the desperate attempts to recover at least something for their shareholders, aren't going to take out the entire indie music community with them?

Re:Slashdot hypocrites are out in full force.

[BorderlineThreat]

Lawsuits alleging subconscious infringement of copyrighted music put a chilling effect on some people who would write and publish music, just as lawsuits against file sharers put a chilling effect on file sharing to some extent.

Yeah, I'll believe that. But, essentially, it's a short term problem. The RIAA, and copyright, won't be around forever, or even for that long now.

Are you sure that the RIAA labels' death throes, the desperate attempts to recover at least something for their shareholders, aren't going to take out the entire indie music community with them?

Even if they "take out the whole indie music community that currently exists," it's not a permenant problem. Are you suggesting that somehow the RIAA's lawsuits will kill the creative impulse in everyone, everywhere, forever? That's an absurd concern on it's face.

Re:hey, RIAA!!

[Anonymous Coward]

mod insightful

Passion!

[hackwrench]

The primary basis for which all decisions should be made.

Whatever

[mcc]

I don't owe the RIAA anything. Period.

The RIAA is a business. They are trying to convince me to be a customer. They exist for my benefit. Not the other way around.

I don't need to rationalize downloading music. I do it because I want to. I don't think it's theft. I don't think it hurts the RIAA, or the artists, or anyone. I don't think it does much of anything. I think many people feel the same way.

I do have to rationalize paying the RIAA for music. I have to come up with some rationalization of some kind of service or worthwhile material they are exchanging if I give them my money. Considering that there is absolutely no shortage of alternate sources for music-- including music which is free and legal on the internet-- there must be some justification present for me to pay the RIAA's usually extremely inflated prices.

Used to, I downloaded quite a lot of music and bought quite a lot of music. I would download music that I did not know enough about to know whether I would like it, and then once I found bands worth supporting, I would buy whatever of theirs I could get my hands on. The RIAA benefited from this arrangement. I obviously myself did not buy enough music to make a direct and personal impact on the RIAAs profits, but I was one of the customers who was a heavy enough buyer that if we all disappeared, the RIAA would be in serious trouble.

In the time since, the RIAA has made it difficult enough to use downloading software, and taken enough directly anti-consumer actions in part of their campaign against downloading music, that I no longer download music. And because I no longer have a good way to find out about new RIAA music and no longer feel the RIAA's actions are something I can bear to monetarily support, I no longer buy music either. Well, OK, I still buy music. But not as much. And never, ever from the RIAA.

The RIAA can buy laws, they can buy advertising to manufacture the public perception the RIAA is somehow owed something by consumers. But I am not going to play along. If the RIAA wants me as a customer, they have to convince me to be one, just like any other business does. They aren't doing that. Instead, in a way that remains constant regardless of any of my actions one way or the other, they would rather treat me like a criminal than a customer. I for one am not going to be treated like a criminal and act like a customer. For the moment I choose to be neither. And this is to the RIAA's loss.

In the meantime, the reason I don't steal cars has nothing to do with legality or illegality. It's because it is wrong, because it hurts people. Congratulations on the Score:5 you've scored by dragging that irrelevant little thing in, though.

They really are clueless

[Catamaran]

The Big 5 corporations represented by the RIAA really don't have a clue. Their various research departments are implementing 31 different, and incompatible, flavors of DRM, which when foisted on the consumer will pretty much guarantee that people will stop buying their products. Management has no clue about cryptography, key management, etc. They just want someone, anyone, to provide them the magic pixie dust that will allow them to continue to operate their monopolistic business model.

Re:They really are clueless

[Khyber]

They just want someone, anyone, to provide them the magic pixie dust that will allow them to continue to operate their monopolistic business model.

I heard someone out in Arkansas or Mississippi's got some really, REALLY good crystal meth right now. Maybe the **AA wants some of that instead of the nose-rotting cocaine they'e been sniffing for a few years?

Make some useful, consumer oriented, laws!

[bcarl314]

I for one, will be the first to agree that stealing is wrong. Whether its a 1969 Corvette or the latest Britany Spears song in mp3, stealing is stealing.

BUT!!!

Once I pay for something, I should not have to pay for THE EXACT SAME THING again.

Here's a test. Next time one of your Star Wars DVDs gets a scratch on it and no longer works (because the media is absolute crap), try running back to your local *Mart or Bust Buy and say, "I'd like to get a new one - this one's faulty".

You'll get laughed right out of the store. So there you are, stuck with a DVD that you paid good money for and you can't use it. So my question is: Should I be able to download a copy of it off the net now? My answer: Hell yes.

The *AA a$$holes have made and continue to make a crap media format. If I can't reliably play a DVD / CD for more than 6 months, then I have no problem downloading the music from the internet. In fact, one of the first things I do with CDs is mp3ify it for my local computer. Illeagle? DMCA says so, but I say screw them. It's fair use and I paid for it.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Make some useful, consumer oriented, laws!

[Travelsonic]

I for one, will be the first to agree that stealing is wrong. Whether its a 1969 Corvette or the latest Britany Spears song in mp3, stealing is stealing./blockquote>

Tell me, where did anybody not agree that stealing was wrong?

Yes, stealing is stealing, but copying is always copying and never is stealing. it has been established before in this topic, bu all that is irrelivent if this is just an opnion, as I do think everybody should be entitled to an opinion.

Re:Make some useful, consumer oriented, laws!

[Tontoman]

>> You'll get laughed right out of the store.

Most stores have liberal exchange policy, especially if you have original receipt.

If you are sued and the Cause of Action is copyright infringement, then of course you have the opportunity to offer a defense. But in many cases these defendants are probably guilty of these charges.

As a nerd, I make my living selling Intellectual Property -- the programs I write. I want my copyrights to be protected, and I want my employer's copyrights also to be protected. Likewise, I want the rights of recording artists and their distributors to be protected, and I welcome these lawsuits by the RIAA.

Are they being effective? I would say yes, at least in my case. The napster share in my house has been turned off for years now, ever since the first lawsuits were filed.

Re:Make some useful, consumer oriented, laws!

[bcarl314]

All I can say is from my experience, most stores do not have a liberal exchange policy when it comes to digital media. If you have a broken physical product, such as a DVD player or VCR player, they are usually very willing to work with you. However, once you crack the seal on a DVD or CD, getting a replacement when it goes back is nearly impossible. Once, I bought a CD where the center hole was bored (drilled) offcetner by a noticable amount. You couldn't even get it to go IN a CD player, let alone play. I went back to the store (with a receipt) to exchange it. Not return - exchange. They looked at the CD, and said it was my player. So I demanded that they prove it and play it on ANY device in their store. Only after testing 5 differnt CD players did they give in a let me get another copy. I've run into similar situations with other digital products (CDs and DVDs). The laws need to address this. If they're going to go after "individual" corruption, they need to go after "corporate" corruption as well.

Big picture

[smashin234]

"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

First, there are file sharers who also download music, and there are people who just download music and don't share.

We know that the big music companies are suffering from earnings that are going down yearly at an increasing rate. So they are trying to stop people from downloading music, and therefore the logical conclusion from their perspective is to stop people from sharing the music.

But they are in denial as so many people have said. Their corporate strategy is dead as of the emergence of napster. Instead of changing their distribution method, they try to hold onto an old archaic distribution method that does not work.

The smart thing to do would be to reorganize, but instead they go after file sharers who apperantly support them more then others who just download the music. This really is logical in a sense as I said, but as the thread starter said, they are really shooting themselves in the foot.

Now, their largest supporters are going to turn against them as well, and so their buisness model will crumble even faster. For everyone that said they have every right to do this, I agree, but it still doesn't mean it isn't stupid of them.

I'm seeding 2 CDs worth of FLACs right now.

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part is these tracks are public domain, and sound better than any of the "music" the RIAA excretes.

If you really want to hurt the RIAA, don't download any of their music, upload it, buy it or listen to it. Tell everyone who asks why (it's shit).

only lesson is

[dmarcoot]

dont share music. leech it, sure, just dont be person sharing it.

Of Course They Saw The Study

[nathanh]

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.

Of course "they" saw the study. They're a huge association and I'd be shocked if the collective staff from all the member companies hadn't read every study ever written about music piracy. However "they" simply don't care. The RIAA's not concerned that pirates also purchase music because their profits aren't significantly affected by that tiny proportion of buyers. The RIAA's greatest fear is that if they turn a blind eye to the pirates then the practise of copying music will be legitimised in the eyes of the vast majority of their customers, aka normal people, and that the majority of customers will stop buying music.

And that's why the RIAA uses pathetic copy prevention schemes, laughable studies and random lawsuits. They're not trying to convince YOU to stop copying. They know YOU will see through the bullshit and YOU will go to extreme lengths to circumvent the copy prevention. They know YOU are both incredibly smart (techwise) but also so lacking in common sense that you will risk having a criminal record to avoid spending $5 on a pressed CD from the bargain bin. They know YOU will spend countless hours reading websites and installing obscure software to get illegitimate copies of music.

However YOU are not the target of all their efforts. They're trying to convince the other 99% of the population that copying music isn't worth the effort. And they're using several techniques in a "shotgun" approach to do that. They're using scare tactics, "copy and you'll be sued", and appeals to emotion, "copy music and little Jimmy will starve to death", and appeals to decency, "copying is plain immoral", and technical barriers to copying that thwart 99% of people, "don't hold down the shift key", and stomping out networks like Napster so the digital copies that are made by smarter pirates aren't widely circulated.

There will always be criminals. The RIAA knows they can't stop them all. But they can deter the rest of the population from becoming criminals as well.

Re:Of Course They Saw The Study

[interstellar_donkey]

The RIAA's greatest fear is that if they turn a blind eye to the pirates then the practise of copying music will be legitimised in the eyes of the vast majority of their customers, aka normal people, and that the majority of customers will stop buying music.

I'd have to disagree. It's not about profits or legality, it's about control. The RIAA is trying to demonize file sharing because it stands as the only major process which circumvents major label's tight control over every aspect of purchasing music. The traditional business model the RIAA members have been clinging to for some time allows them to decide which bands are signed, which bands are promoted, which bands are played on the radio, and which bands get premium space on record store shelves.

It comes as no surprise that file sharers are more apt to purchase music, but the study doesn't indicate which music they purchase. I can only speak from personal experience, but I'd guess that the bulk of the music file sharers purchase isn't the heavily hyped assembly line ilk that RIAA members want people to buy.

File sharing services give consumers access to a near unlimited catalog of music to try out. It doesn't rely on a band's image (how many ugly bands do the major labels sign these days?) and it doesn't rely on heavy air play on the radio. Instead it lets the consumer discover music that her or she actually likes.

This has to drive the RIAA nuts. If the process of discovering new bands on the Internet-where things like word of mouth are far more powerful then hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into promotion-is legitimized, it means that the traditional methods major labels have been employing for decades become moot. In other words, with the wealth of options and exposure to obscure bands the Internet brings, consumers are likely to purchase CDs with content they actually like, as opposed to what the labels want them to like.

If (and really, it's not a question of if these days, but when) this takes off in the mainstream, record companies can't simply sign a band that sounds like other popular bands and apply a formulaic model for promotion which yields a predictable economic return. In order to stay profitable they'll actually have to sign "good" bands with "talent". Recognizing talent and quality is a skill major record labels lost some time ago.

What good is it for major record labels if file sharing leads consumers to purchase music they want to own, when it's more likely the artists who produce that music lie outside their sphere of influence?

Re:Of Course They Saw The Study

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to drive the RIAA nuts. If the process of discovering new bands on the Internet-where things like word of mouth are far more powerful then hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into promotion-is legitimized, it means that the traditional methods major labels have been employing for decades become moot. In other words, with the wealth of options and exposure to obscure bands the Internet brings, consumers are likely to purchase CDs with content they actually like, as opposed to what the labels want them to like.

If only that were true, but the majority of files traded on eDonkey and Bittorrent are from the Top 50. Seems to blow your argument right out of the water.

You lose.

[hackwrench]

By the very virtue that you think that you fathom reality to any great depth and that you think that fathoming reality is a binary issue. You can't steal something that is freely given. Chew on that for a while!

Your post after being run through my filter

[Anonymous Coward]

tell me that the last sentence in this submission isn't just a little loaded. The apparent IQ of Slashdot goes up quite a lot if you simply remove the last sentence from every posting. I'm considering writing a browser filter to automate the process. That said, your response is loaded too. You refer repeatedly to "stealing". Copyright infringement is not stealing. It lacks the element of depriving the previous holder of the thing in question, which is the very essence of "theft". It's because copyright infringement is not theft, that copyright infringement is prosecuted under totally different laws from the laws that apply to theft, and carries different (in fact, generally much more severe) penalties than the penalties that apply to theft. As a very simple litmus test, remember the "Return your MP3s" joke that made the rounds a while back? If copyright infringement were theft, then returning the "stolen goods" really would make sense and it wouldn't be a joke.

Replacing my stolen CD collection

[quokkapox]

When I was young and foolish, before the days when you could back up your entire CD collection, I left a folder containing said collection in the back seat of my car. It was gone an hour later when I returned from a class.

Since then I have managed to replace many of the CDs which were physically STOLEN from me, which I once rightfully owned and paid retail price for. I have a box full of album sleeves and cover art to prove it.

I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?

I wonder if my entire CD collection had instead been washed away in a hurricane or destroyed by fire. If we are to believe the RIAA stance that I owned a "license to listen", I would hope that physical loss of my actual media permits me to re-acquire and re-create that media using filesharing.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[zakezuke]

I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?

Problem is, someone else is enjoying their licensed copy of your old CD. While I personaly have no moral objection... you are violating the copyright plain and simple. A better plan would be to backup everything you own before hand and then if it's stolen it's no great loss. Better yet get a nice CD printer and imprint your name on the discs.... this way second hand shops would at the very least look twice before buying them, if they buy them at all.

I too have lost a number of tapes and CDs by bozos who broke into my car, and I supply my car with CD-rs rather than CDs.

In the same vein those people who buy CDs from pawnshops and 2nd hand stores, while legal (mostly) are not actually supporting the bands, or the RIAA. This is one thing I could never stand about anti piracy advocates... most bought things used and on close out and while they would preach about the importance of supporting the copyright holders... they were doing their best to cheat them but in a socialy acceptable way.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[SilverspurG]

you are violating the copyright plain and simple.

I, and many people, do not feel that modern copyright law is a fair implementation which actually protects the good of society. Even if it were, the Federal Government is outside of its jurisdiction taking part in any law which doesn't deal directly with the original author or inventor. The Constitution says nothing of a "copyright holder" and, even if the law does, the Constitution's (and government's) duty is to the original author, inventor, or creator. The "copyright holder" is just some schmuck with a piece of paper, a big mouth, and lots of money to bribe politicians.

This whole business about licensing is an artificial creation of the politicians, attorneys, and lobbies to subvert the Constitutional protection for the individual authors, inventors, and creators.

In short... modern copyright law is the newer, kindler, gentler extortion.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[Spy der Mann]

Problem is, someone else is enjoying their licensed copy of your old CD. While I personaly have no moral objection... you are violating the copyright plain and simple.

Oh look! Someone stole my car and used it to commit a crime! It was my car officer, arrest me.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[zakezuke]

Oh look! Someone stole my car and used it to commit a crime! It was my car officer, arrest me.

Faulty logic. You didn't commit the crime... you can't really be held accountable if someone stole your car. But if someone steals your CDs, and you make new copies from someone else, well that is a copyright violation. As excuses go it's semi-decent, after all in theory you paid for it in the first place... but that doesn't mean it's not a copyright violation.

Unfortunatly there is not license to own a copy... perhaps there should be, but there isn't. I'm actually pro physical licenses in the form of a cover... and i'm pro download the music and buy the cover. I think this would solve the huge problem with freeloaders, and those users who have the legit excuse of not buying something because it's out of print... digital copy would mean there is no such thing as out of print, and a licensed cover would mean you paid for it. Or for single tracks... a little stamp you can put on a cover. Free distribution and profit... who could ask for more?

This way... all those stupid freaking control freaks who are running amuck with their little pro-anti p2p flags.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[Spy der Mann]

But if someone steals your CDs, and you make new copies from someone else, well that is a copyright violation. As excuses go it's semi-decent, after all in theory you paid for it in the first place... but that doesn't mean it's not a copyright violation.

Yes, but are there LEGAL means of having a second copy handed to you by the RIAA? (And I don't mean by paying for another one which is completely different)

I don't think so. This is like arresting people for not paying taxes when you don't give them the means of getting a job. (Which curiously, is exactly what happens with poor countries' external debts).

So, if it's the same data you're recovering by file sharing, where's the copyright violation? It's the case of two people who have separately bought copies of the same piece of information, interchange such information in the case of a loss (such as having a RAID array).

So, if there are NO legal means of recovering what rightfully belongs to you, there's no other choice than doing it "illegally".

Which is the aburd that I'm trying to point out: The laws are UNFAIR. And an unfair (AND illogical) law defies the very purpose of Law itself.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[zakezuke]

Yes, but are there LEGAL means of having a second copy handed to you by the RIAA?

Nope. Disney is a different story... from my understanding you can get discs replaced for a smallish fee. They are not as spiffy as the box set... you lose the color graphics on the disc, but at least they do this.

There is auto insurance that covers theft. Those I know who have it get a check cut by their agents who in turn buy their music back from the nearest pawn shop.

I don't think so. This is like arresting people for not paying taxes when you don't give them the means of getting a job.

No it isn't. It's like getting your tapes stolen and making a copy from someone else's copy. While you feel justified... it's still a copyright violaton.

So, if it's the same data you're recovering by file sharing, where's the copyright violation?

You do have the right to make backups of what you own. This is fair and reasonable. But because music isn't licensed loss of the physical product is loss of ownership. You don't own it anymore... so the moment you copy it from elsewhere someone is commiting a copyright violation.

It's the case of two people who have separately bought copies of the same piece of information, interchange such information in the case of a loss (such as having a RAID array).

This is nothing like a RAID array. Nothing at all.

So, if there are NO legal means of recovering what rightfully belongs to you, there's no other choice than doing it "illegally".

I'm not arguing the ethics... it doesn't change the fact that if you take the time to copy something you don't own without the express permission from the copyright holder... you have commited a violation of the copyright.

But there is a legal means of recovering from a loss, insurrance. Car insurance, renters insurance, home owners insurance. More unreliable is marking your media with an indelible marker. This way there is a chance in hell the police might beable to recover your property. It's not fair but that's life.

Which is the aburd that I'm trying to point out: The laws are UNFAIR. And an unfair (AND illogical) law defies the very purpose of Law itself.

The law is unfair. They are playing both sides of the coin. One the one hand they claim music is licensed and on the other hand they claim you buy it. I agree that the law should be changed so that music is licensed and format shifting is 100% legal. No more hiding behind that "well you might end up with a better copy" argument. I would agree that it would be "nice" to be able to buy a license to play media. This way if your media is rendered unplayable there is no quesiton legal or otherwise that you can make copy from another source. And for people like your self who have things stolen... that would be nice.

So rather than trying to argue the point with me about the subject... do everything in your power to change the law, or the attidues involving the sales of media. Because no matter which way you look at it, using someone else's media to make a copy for something you lost is a copyright violation. You might feel justified, and someone like my self really doesn't give a shit, but it's still a copyright violation.

Or better yet... learn from your prior mistake and backup what you own on CD-R or DVD-R. This way if your collection gets stolen.. they steal a bunch of worthless discs.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken a step further....I PAY for my TV service. If I hear a song in a program, that I PAID to hear, (that everybody right down the line, got paid to use in said production) have I not a right to use said song, without the video?

I don't care if it's a the music of a coke commercial. Or a movie soundtrack. I receive a few hundred channels I PAY to receive, and with absolute certainty, I have RIGHTS to ALL content delivered to me. (Yes and is a DAMN LOT!)

I PAID to receive those broadcasts. Don't I have a licence to reproduce that content for my own use? How is obtaining that content via a sharing system different then using a VCR or backing up a song from a CD I have bought?

It is not different. In fact any attempts to subvert my personal archiving of the content I have PAID to receive is an act of bad faith by the content provider, and violates my purchased rights.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[gnasher719]

"I don't think I'm stealing anything whatsoever by downloading replacement copies of CDs I used to own. I'm not sure I am even guilty of copyright infringement. I used to have a right to play all that music, whenever I pleased. Was that right somehow erased when my car was broken into?"

When you make a duplicate of a CD, you duplicate the actual CD, but you cannot duplicate the right to listen to the music on it. In the same way, the thief took away your physical CDs, but he could not take away the right to listen to the music. In principle, if the RIAA could prove that the thief listened to your CDs, they could sue him for copyright infringement.

So downloading the music to replace your ability to actually hear the music which you have the right to hear is definitely morally acceptable, and should be legal - you might end up in a court case, however, and have to _prove_ that it is legal. Which might be difficult.

This one is more difficult: If you had 100 CDs, they were stolen, insurance pays to replace the CDs, you download your 100 CDs and use the money to buy 100 different ones.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[gnasher719]

"Problem is, someone else is enjoying their licensed copy of your old CD. "

A thief who steals my CDs doesn't _own_ them. He has no right at all to listen to the music on them. Therefore, he is guilty both of theft and of copyright infringement.

Just because I can duplicate a CD doesn't mean I have duplicated the right to listen to the music. Turn this argument around: Just because someone stole my physical CD doesn't mean I've lost the right to listen to the music.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[CthulhuDreamer]

"Or better yet... learn from your prior mistake and backup what you own on CD-R or DVD-R. This way if your collection gets stolen.. they steal a bunch of worthless discs."

And if it's a DRM'd disk, then what? You no longer have bought the right to listen to that song, but the right to listen to that song on that unique disk.

Re:Replacing my stolen CD collection

[zakezuke]

A thief who steals my CDs doesn't _own_ them. He has no right at all to listen to the music on them. Therefore, he is guilty both of theft and of copyright infringement.

If physical ownership, i.e. having them, is the license to play then they have every right to listen to them. We're not talking about a product that you register, or has anything resembling serial numbers typicaly speaking. We're talking about a disc that is mass produced in huge quanities.

Unfortunatly, you don't have the right to backup the disc from someone else... it's not your disc. A fair backup is material you own that you backed up. I personaly wouldn't give a shit.. but that doesn't change the fact that you are commiting a violation of the copyright.

Just because I can duplicate a CD doesn't mean I have duplicated the right to listen to the music

This is true, but if you backup something you own, this can be considered fair use. You have physical ownership of a product as a safegard against damage or theft. You made the backup of something you phsyicaly own at the time you physicaly owned it.

Turn this argument around: Just because someone stole my physical CD doesn't mean I've lost the right to listen to the music.

But you lost the music... and you don't have the right to copy it from someone else. At least with a software product there is at the very least a license key that is something that resembles proof of ownership, and while a copy from someone else would still be copyright infringement... so long as you have proof i.e. that license... no one would give a shit. But CDs don't have the same provision.. they should but they don't. I imagine that if you still had the case you could reasonably argue that you bought it, some jackass stole it, and no one would really give a shit. But that doesn't change the fact that making a copy from someone else isn't fair use.

So Let's Take 'Em On!

[FFFish]

If we can find out who these people are and put them in contact with that groovy lawyer for the woman who made news last week re: fighting back, plus sent in the cost of a single CD to that lawyer to help offset expenses... why, shit, we might have a revolution at hand.

For a few bucks each, we can help make RIAA's life a living hell.

Good entertainment value there!

Re:So Let's Take 'Em On!

[dema]

That lawyer is Ray Beckerman of Bedlock Levine & Hoffman LLP. He started a blog recently posting information about the trail. Some of the documents are great reads, the judge is pretty much disgusted by the RIAA's actions.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

Share only free music and RIAA will die.

[the_REAL_sam]

What's so difficult about that? RIAA wants to be greedy and use the law (in "merciless?" ways) to bolster greed.

Share only free music and they cannot hurt you. With free music you give free publicity to unknown's and locals, and, more importantly, to those who are giving their stuff for free.

There is enough free music out there that we simply don't need "big media" record industry or anything that it sells.

If people would wake up to that, the RIAA would deservedly die off like the embodiment of greed that it is.

RIAA crackdowns advantage terrorists

[MeridianOnTheLake]

The huge problem with these crackdowns is that they result in the development of more secure, more anonymous file sharing technology making the sharing of information amongst terrorist groups harder to snoop on. If it wasn't for these trivial attacks on relatively mundane sharing activities, the authorities responsible for monitoring serious criminal activity, that has a true negative impact on society, would have a much easier job.

Re:RIAA crackdowns advantage terrorists

[Nefarious420]

so what your saying is the RIAA suports terrorists?

Hey me too!

[/dev/trash]

I had my CDs stolen too.

blah blah "business model" blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should some outmoded businesss model be kept alive via legislation?

It amuses the hell out of me to see "business model" flourish as the buzzword of choice among self-righteous music pirates. I honestly wonder if anyone on slashdork knows what it means... most of you idiots think a 'business model' is a 16" replica of the Chrysler building.

It is stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can it not be stealing ?

Sometimes I just think the entire world has gone mad.
I mean, do you walk into Safeway and "share" the soda from the fridge.

Same fucking thing you idiots.

Don't like CD's ? Fine, don't buy em.
Don't like Online music paysites ? Fine, don't use em.
Use an "sharing" system ? Fine, get your ass sued off.

Re:It is stealing.

[Travelsonic]

How can it not be stealing ?

Simple, because the law says the crime is copyright infrignement and not theft, and the law says so because the crime involves illegally copying copyrighted works and violating associated contracts and/or agreements, not taking something illegally from somebody.

I mean, do you walk into Safeway and "share" the soda from the fridge.

No, because that IS theft.

...Use an "sharing" system ? Fine, get your ass sued off.

If I share free music I legally am alloowed to share, such things will be most unlikely to happen, troll.

Re:It is stealing.

[LividBlivet]

How can it not be stealing ? The same way it is not murder. Get it asshole?

Re:It is stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is copying the same thing as stealing?

You're a retard.

Re:It is stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Specialist data recovery companies wouldn't even dream of trying to recover data overwritten just once. How will they sue me when my hdd is blank? Suck my willy, RIAA I'm stealing lots of music.

You still have your right to a trial

[tepples]

So basically they have to determine your guilt without you there to defend yourself.

No, the Doe suits determine whether an infringement is likely to have occurred, specifically whether it is likely enough to warrant a subpoena for the identity. Some might compare it to grand jury proceedings. Whatever the Doe suits are, they're definitely no substitute for a jury trial.

Re:You still have your right to a trial

[jez9999]

Jury trial? Surely this is a civil matter. Over here (UK), such copyright infringement cases would not be heard in front of a jury.

Re:You still have your right to a trial

[SlayerofGods]

99% of civil matters are heard in front of a judge as the parties wave their right to a jury since a jury is likely to fall asleep during your average civil trail.
But we have something called the Seventh Amendment that says if you want to you can have a jury trial.
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The new revenue model

[Kris_J]

If most people don't fight these lawsuits they're profitable. Not only does that mean the RIAA has deep pockets, but they get deeper with every settlement. If people don't fight the RIAA and cost them money pretty soon it will have enough money to sue every man, woman and child on the planet. It's like one big protection racket.

The problem with the RIAA...

[Kaenneth]

Lets take, as a random example, from amazon, 'The Matrix' (I havn't looked it up before writing this)

The movie itself on DVD: $14.97

The Matrix: Original Motion Picture Score [SOUNDTRACK]: $16.98

So, just the music part of the audio, not even the spoken words of the actors costs $2.01 more than the Digital Video, Audio in Dolby 5.1, Bonus Features, and all, of the DVD version.

Audio CD albums should generally be sold for $5 in little cheap cardboard sleeves

At the current insane prices I have bought 1 boxed set of CD's for $20 in the last year. If they cut their prices to $5 I would probably buy at least 1 CD a week. It's pretty simple, at 1/5 the profit per disc, but selling 50 times as many discs, profits multiply by 10.

Music stores would have much higher sales volume and albums would go 'gold' and 'platinum' a lot quicker. The main problem I forsee is the waste produced by making CD's more disposable, but that could be solved by a good recycling program.

As handy as iTunes might be, there is a good quote; "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"; a truckload of CD's heading to the music store is a more efficent than pumping bits through the internet.

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

As handy as iTunes might be, there is a good quote; "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"; a truckload of CD's heading to the music store is a more efficent than pumping bits through the internet.

And you think that each customer piloting a gasoline fueled, 3000lb metal monster a couple of miles to the mall to buy a small plastic laminated disk is somehow efficient?

A station wagon full of tapes may be an efficient way of transporting bulk data from point A to point B - but it's not an efficient way of distributing data, especially when downloading only takes a couple of minutes and few watts of power.

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[Kethinov]

The movie itself on DVD: $14.97

The Matrix: Original Motion Picture Score [SOUNDTRACK]: $16.98

One (or at least the RIAA) would assume this remarkable price difference is justified because of the difference in replay value. Most people will listen to a movie soundtrack many times more than they will watch the movie.

That said, I don't like the whole idea of a metered service in the first place. I want to be able to pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited music downloads, just like I do for TV. TV is half way there. You can get a TV tuner and make your own rips of TV shows legally. Why can't I subscribe to unlimited music downloads for a flat monthly fee?

Oh yeah, I know why, because the RIAA is insatiably greedy.

(Woohoo 1000th post!)

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[Tim C]

It's pretty simple, at 1/5 the profit per disc, but selling 50 times as many discs, profits multiply by 10.

That's assuming that the CDs can be sold at $5 and still make a profit. If it costs $6 per CD overall to get the songs from the head(s) of the artist(s) to the pressed CDs sat on the shop shelf, then it doesn't matter how many you sell, you're still going out of business.

As handy as iTunes might be, there is a good quote; "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"; a truckload of CD's heading to the music store is a more efficent than pumping bits through the internet.

No. All that quote means is that it would be faster for the shop to have the CDs shipped to them than it would be for them to download the equivalent data. It also ignores the fact that mp3s are compressed and you need only download each track once, so that would have to be a truckload of unique songs.

In any case, it is more energy and time efficient for me to sit at home downloading tracks from iTunes (or wherever), than it is for the truck to transport CDs to the store, the store to put those CDs out on display, then for me to travel to the store to buy one or two. (Cheaper, too, in fact)

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[mochan_s]

As a consumer, you always want lower prices. But, prices are set by supply and demand; not actual value. In a perfect free market system, they would be the same but it isn't a perfect free market system.

The current price is setup for maximum profits. While $20 maybe a big deal to you, for a lot of aimed market, it probably isn't when they're making 100K a year.

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie itself on DVD: $14.97

The Matrix: Original Motion Picture Score [SOUNDTRACK]: $16.98

So, just the music part of the audio, not even the spoken words of the actors costs $2.01 more than the Digital Video, Audio in Dolby 5.1, Bonus Features, and all, of the DVD version.

I get what you're saying, but your example is flawed. For one thing, no film ever contains the complete, unedited score as originally written by the composer. To get that, you gotta buy it on CD, unless the DVD contains a standalone version of the score as a bonus, which is fairly rare.

Not only that, but when you buy a soundtrack you're paying for the ability to listen to the complete score in any sequence you choose - skip certain cues, listen to others more than once, listen to them in any order you want. So it's a little silly to directly compare the music you actually hear in a movie to a complete film score, just to make a point about the cost of CD's.

What if I happen to think The Matrix is a piece of crap, but I love the soundtrack? To me it might be worth $2 more just to hear the film's score in its entirety, uninterrupted by the "spoken words of the actors" ('Whoa').

Like I said, I get your point, but your example is silly.

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't any kind of free market system at all. Nearly everyone in the music publishing business has a row of tiny monopolies (exclusive artist rights). So the supply is controlled by the monopolist, they set prices, you passively consume.

Suppose all chart CDs were equivalent, and a customer interested in buying the #2 rock album would be equally satisfied with #7 in the country or folk charts... suddenly there's a real free market, you get competition and the prices tumble.

But copyright ensures that will never happen, that's why artists who get through the first years of their career with a functioning brain all go into publishing - that's where the money is. No need to be /creative/ just leech off other people.

If the inventors of copyright could have realised that the printing press would one day be something /everyone/ owned, and that publishers, not creators would end up using the law to protect an exploitative monopoly, well maybe we'd have a lot less laws on the books and a lot more interesting stuff to read, listen to, etc.

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[smyle]

So, just the music part of the audio, not even the spoken words of the actors costs $2.01 more than the Digital Video, Audio in Dolby 5.1, Bonus Features, and all, of the DVD version.

Ah, but how much would the DVD cost if the composers didn't count on also being able to sell the music separately?

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[hackstraw]

I've noticed that DVD vs CD price discrepancy for some time now.

Take another example:

DVD -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 08PX8P/102-9694362-0748148?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846 &vi=tech-info

CD -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 08OWZC/qid=1125589192/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9694 362-0748148?v=glance&s=music&n=507846#product-deta ils

The DVD is two disks which have a total play time of 314 minutes of phenominal video and audio in multiple formats. I own it, and highly recommend it. It is sold at Amazon for $22.49.

The CD is three disks. The playtime is not explicitly shown, but to estimate that each disk has 70 minutes of audio (unlikely) that would be 210 minutes of music. It is sold at Amazon for $24.49.

CDs are simply too expensive for the market. Plain and simple. Why they cost more than a DVD is beyond me. I make a decent amount of money and have over 500 Gigs of (prettymuch) legal music on my computer, I go to about 5 to 15 concerts a year at a great expense. I cannot justify spending 24.49 on 2 CDs. The DVDs are a much better value.

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[trancient]

You can't compare the price of DVD to the price of a CD. The DVD is an aftermarket product priced accordingly to its distrubution channel. A CD is the only distribution for a musical product other than legal musical downloading. And in that case you can download just one song for $.99 or less, hence less money for an intended package product. A movie makes its revenue by release in theatres, on pay-per-view, on premium cable stations, on DVD, and finally on regular Cable/TV channels. This is why movie studios can price a DVD so reasonably.

Re:The problem with the RIAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking retarded? How much more did it cost to produce a movie soundtrack than it cost to produce the movie, WHICH INCLUDED SAID SOUNDTRACK?

Control != control

[tepples]

laughingcoyote: [The record labels] desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal."

shark72: You're 100% correct: the music industry is in the business of distributing music. I would have thought that obvious, but there may be some people reading this who weren't aware of it.

There's control, and then there's control. The major labels don't just want control over distribution of their music. They want control over distribution of recorded music period. They have used anticompetitive techniques to chill independent bands on the 12-employee local labels you mention and on Internet labels such as Magnatune, to a large extent involving the manipulation of commercial FM radio.

I am, but may I suggest doing even more

[Sycraft-fu]

And that's to spend your money on non-RIAA CDs. I suggest starting with http://www.cdbaby.com/ they claim to be 100% indy, direct from artists to them to you. I cannot verify their claims, but my experience does not lead me to doubt them. You also might want to check out http://www.cdroots.com/. They are a world music site. Note, however, they don't claim to be indy so you will want to check the labels to see if they are owned by RIAA members.

The reason to do this is not just to get yourself music you enjoy, but also because for a reseller boycott to be truly effective, you need to give producers another route to reach you. The less they make using the RIAA chain and the more others make via indy distribution, the more attractive it is to switch.

Re:I am, but may I suggest doing even more

[jez9999]

The day CD Baby gets a logo that doesn't make me want to turn images off whilst browsing its site, I'll consider it.

Stealing and Copyright infringement

[ShimmyShimmy]

Actually, although the two are somewhat different, they can be related. What's the difference between piracy and stealing?

Piracy makes unwanted duplicates, but otherwise causes no *damage* to the firm. The copies the users make with their own bandwidth costs the company nothing.

So, let's make this analogy. Let's say you find a way to secretly tunnel all the gin you want, for a discounted price, the Cost of Goods Sold. We'll call this 'pirating' gin. You pay COGS and get your gin. The company loses no money.

Now, from the company's perspective, the two are equal. They obviously would like you to buy instead of pirate, and pay retail instead of COGS, but neither is making them *lose* money.

    Unless, of course, you all of a sudden, assume they are pirating instead of buying. However, the surveys suggest this is not an accurate model.

    Surveys suggest that users pirate music and buy more music than other people. The analogy now would be, that you 'pirate' your gin, then buy two bottles at retail. Compare that to someone else who only buys one bottle.

    Despite the fact that you are 'pirating' gin (or music), the company is still better off having you do both.

    Obviously, they would rather have you buy three bottles than buy two and pirate one, but they're still doing just fine.

Company makes money. Customer is drunk. Everyone's happy. Why do we need lawyers for this?

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Jim_Callahan]

The flaw here is that copyrighted works are being made available (albeit free of charge) without the originator's explicit permission, well beyond the terms of fair use. This is a violation of the system put in place to allow writers et al the chance to make a living off of producing a quality product. That's the legal angle.

The moral angle is that, if you're paid a percentage of total sales of your work, it doesn't matter if someone liked a song they loaded for free and bought every other single the label produced, the author of the original song is still fucked unless he wrote a lot of said other songs signed to the label. Perhaps this situation doesn't happen a lot, but it has a strong potential to happen, and designing a moral system around a strong probability of screwing someone over is called 'being an asshole', which is generally frowned on in modern society.

We need lawyers because apparrently legality and the 'don't be an asshole' aspect of modern morals seem to have completely eluded a number of people, and the old animal imperative of "do the right thing or you'll get screwed over yourself" has to be applied, i.e. they are attempting to create an effective deterrent.

Of course, the record companies' motives are probably far less socially responsible than that, but that's why I would sue your ass if it were up to me, anyhow.

Oh, right, i should have put the answer to your question in context of your metaphor. Well, too late now. Postination time.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, although the two are somewhat different, they can be related. What's the difference between piracy and stealing?

It's not piracy, either. Piracy involves stealing a ship with the people still on it, or something like that.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Shaper_pmp]

Exactly.

Piracy is possibly depriving an organisation of sales.

Theft is definitely depriving a company of property.

They're only equivalent in the slightest if you assume:

"Possibly" is the same as "definitely" (when all the studies we've seen show otherwise), and

"The potential for a sale" is the same as "definite tangible property", like money or goods (which is such clearly bogus wishful thinking that I'm surprised anyone ever buys the argument).

"Company makes money. Customer is drunk. Everyone's happy. Why do we need lawyers for this?"

Because the *AA still think it's better to have 99% of a tiny cake than slightly less of a cake many, many times the size.

And where there's a worry, or the potential for disagreement, there's a pair of lawyers right in the middle, profiting from it like crazy.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know the difference between a couple of pounds of dirt and a Big Mac? It's the work that went into producing the Big Mac. Ultimately they're both just electrons and protons. But at a higher level, the dirt will grow grasses, vegetables, fruits & grains. The grasses are eaten by a cow. The cow is butchered. The meat is ground. The grains are made into bread. The vegetables and fruits are cleaned and chopped. All of these ingredients are prepared and presented in a particular fashion called a Big Mac. So you would be totally on board with me bringing in a couple of handfuls of dirt and swapping it for a Big Mac?

The same arguments can be made for any product. You wouldn't mind if I came to your place and took all your stuff as long as I left some dirt, right?

Now you're going to say that dirt isn't the same as tangible good A, B, or C, and I would respond by saying that music isn't the same as random noise. It is the arrangement of the component parts that make music have value, not the existance of those components.

All of the music thieves argue that they aren't stealing anything, that there is no value in what they get because nobody is deprived of anything. But they clearly would not want five megabytes of random bits. The arrangement of the data that they are acquiring has value. People put time and effort into creating that arrangement, and hence that value. A car is just the arrangement of raw materials, in fact, from the proper perspective a car is just information, a particular arrangement of component materials. Would you really suggest that I should be able to exchange any random matter for any other random matter that caught my whim? As long as the "owner" of the matter got an equivelant amount they aren't losing anything right?

Let's say that someone sees an advertisement offering money for someone to come paint a house. So they go to the advertiser who provides them with paint and brushes. They paint the house. Then they go to the advertiser and say "I want to be paid." And the advertiser responds, "No, I provided the paint. I provided the brushes, I provided the house. I have taken nothing from you." The obvious response is that the advertiser clearly offered compensation in exchange for labor.

Our society advertises that people will be able to control the manner and amount of the distribution of their creative creations, that they will be able to be paid for the results of their labor. When I buy a shirt at the mall, I'm not paying for the raw materials, I'm paying for the information that is expressed by those raw materials. I am paying for the labor that went into changing dirt and a shirt.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[ifwm]

Ok, while I agree with you, I think it's a little silly to think that piracy doesn't influence sales somewhat.

While the overall change may be miniscule, there are certainly people who pirate instead of buying.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[drsquare]

Surveys suggest that users pirate music and buy more music than other people.

It's funny how people unquestioningly believe surveys when they like the results. If there was a survey showing that pirates buy less music, you'd all write hundreds of pages finding faults in it. But in this case you don't even bat an eyelid.

My reckoning is that people who pirate music generally don't answer surveys like that, or if they do, they don't answer it honestly:

Q: Do you pirate music?
A: Well, a bit. Once. Accidently. I deleted it three seconds later.
Q: How much music do you buy?
A: Oh loads, honest, really. £100 a week on music, that I sampled online. Honest to god.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Shaper_pmp]

And there are others who only buy because they discovered the band through piracy or bootlegging (I've done this myself).

Metallica, for example, owe their "big break" almost solely to bootleg copies of their demo tapes or early releases.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[ifwm]

Again, I agree.

My point (hopefully it was clear) is that there are many individuals who claim that piracy doesn't influence sales, and that pirates don't buy less.

Clearly there must be some (admittedly small) amount of individuals who do pirate instead of buying, but as you suggest, other things may cancel their influence.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[JesseMcDonald]

What if (once the idea of a Big Mac(TM) had been realized) one could go from a couple pounds of dirt to a Big Mac(TM) in seconds with negligible effort? That is the case with digital arrangements. It is what makes the digital arrangements different from physical ones: they can be duplicated with almost no effort. If someone invented an easy, quick way to rearrange the matter in a few pounds of dirt into a Big Mac(TM), would we grant McDonald's(TM) a monopoly on that particular arrangement of matter to protect them from competition, or would we just let everyone have their (almost) free food?

AFAIK, no one is arguing that the effort and investment in developing the original idea should go unappreciated. However, many people, myself included, are opposed to granting a monopoly on the entire idea to the first one to discover it. Some of use are, instead, attempting to find other ways to compensate artists and inventors for their efforts. Some of these efforts appear to be succeeding (see http://www.magnatune.com/ for a partial example).

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Technician]

Obviously, they would rather have you buy three bottles than buy two and pirate one, but they're still doing just fine.

I used to subscribe to basic cable many years ago. I tinkered with the signal to see how it worked and decoded one of the channels bleeped by a second carrier. A simple home built series resonant tuned trap fixed it. A year later, the cable company raised rates and new legislation passed regarding theft of cable signals which would make it possible to charge me for all cable channels including all pay per view up to 3 years past whether I pirated them or not. Between the rate hike and the new expensive liability, I dropped cable and have never re-subscribed. Tell me again how this is a win for the cable company?
This is also the reason I don't have a dish. I like to tinker and the legal risk is too high. No dish, no cable, no risk.

It's the same reason I don't have XM. I'd be tempted to use it to build a local library. Playing by their rules means no sale. If they permitted home recording for personal use, they would have a subscriber. Their choice, their loss.

When I was on an island in the Atlantic, there was lots of satelite piracy. It was mostly related to being beyond the US laws and the signal was not for sale there at all. (They won't bill to a non-US address.) You can't legaly buy a satelite subscription there. Some simply had the bill sent to a friend or relative in the US. Others simply found it easier to pirate the signal instead.

I never understood the business model of we won't sell it to you at all, but if you take it anyway, you are costing us lost income.

In some markets scaricity means little as there is nobody selling it in those markets. In those markets, the piracy model (copyright violations) mean little. The same applies to out of print materials. Nobody is selling it. A bootleg copy isn't depriving anyone a sale of a legal copy. Not selling from the archives makes no sense.
(Still waiting for the Disney release of 3rd man on the Mountain)

Lucas Films never intended to put Star Wars out to the home video market. While I was overseas I found a bootleg copy long after it quit running in the theatres. About 3 years later Lucasfilm released it on video due to piracy. I never bought a copy due to their failure to sell. I have bought some of the newer editions that they did have for sale. The lack of a legal way to buy a copy in the 1980's cost them a sale.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. The point is where is the value in a Big Mac. It's in the fact that the atoms arranged in such a fashion as to be tasty and juicy rather than toxic and nauseating. It's the information content of a Big Mac that matters.

AFAIK, no one is arguing that the effort and investment in developing the original idea should go unappreciated. However, many people, myself included, are opposed to granting a monopoly on the entire idea to the first one to discover it.

1) A lot of people absolutely agree with you, the artist should be compensated... by someone other than me.

2) Do you believe that people "discover" songs? I don't. I believe they create songs. It's not like they are just finding this music hidden under a rock. Music isn't discovered, it's created.

3) Do you really believe that you shouldn't have a monopoly of the information you "discover" while fucking your wife/girlfriend/hand/hampster? Or should I be able to record it with cameras and share it to all the world? Do you think you deserve a monopoly on the information you have "discovered" about who you are, ie. your identity? Do you think that the information that people's children "discover" and perform publicly while at the park should be fair game? Do you think that the information you "discover" while at work has any value and you should be compensated for it? The entire idea of privacy is that you don't have to give everything you create to the public and that you can control what you do give and the manner that it is used.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate the RIAA, it annoys me slightly when slashdotters say that people pirating music also buy more music. It seems natural to me that the people who would go to the trouble of breaking a law to pirate music would have a strong interest in music in general. Therefore, since the group in question has a strong interest in music, it makes sense that they'd be interested in music in all its forms--including legal. But, I haven't yet seen anyone mention any studies saying that the sale of music would go down among this group of people if they didn't pirate anymore. I see reasons why such a correlation might exist (e.g. sampling music leads to purchasing music), but no studies that point to it. That, to me, says that the "pirating = more buying" is more of a moral shield and a way to demonize the music industry--demons though they be--than a good justification.

Re:Stealing and Copyright infringement

[Shaper_pmp]

I'm not sure what your point is here, since it seems to be a non sequiteur to my original post.

I never suggested "work done" had no value, and never suggested artists shouldn't be compensated for their work.

My point (which you seem to have comprehensively missed) were that:

1) Calling it "theft" is inaccurate and misleading. It's not theft, since nothing was stolen (if you can steal "time", I'd be very impressed - it's an intangible concept). Actually, the term is "copyright infringement", which is a much morally-greyer area than "theft", and one which is still somewhat open to debate.

The only reason the *AA (and yourself) use the term "theft" is because it's an unarguably negative (and emotive) term, and it implies anyone arguing against them is in favour of theft. This is exactly like calling abortion "murder" - the real debate's actually a lot more complex than that (when does "a foetus" become "a person", mother's rights, etc), but the anti- party can sidestep all the complication and necessity of rationally defending their position by framing the debate in terms of "you're either with me, or in favour of murder".

"Theft" means depriving of property. "Copyright infringement" means duplicating a work (at your own expense), and violating someone else's copyright. They aren't the same thing, and we have different terms for a reason.

Thus, claiming "theft" is inaccurate, since nobody's actually removed property from them.

2) What they're claiming is loss of potential sales, and blaming it on filesharers. "Lost sales" are impossible to prove - I could easily launch a new product and claim I "should" be getting a million sales a day, but who's to say this is realistic?

They implicitely assume with every *AA-funded study that every single person who downloads would otherwise buy every single song o ntheir machines, and this is patently false - someone will pick up something for free that they'd never in a million years actually pay for, simply because it's free.

In fact, the worst example was one study which (if you read the fine print) assumed that the presence of one song on a computer meant the user would definitely have bought the entire album it was released on. This is clearly complete bullshit, but it gives the *AA lovely inflated figures to bandy around, making the problem look far, far worse than it is.

The claim that the "possibility for piracy" is translating to "demonstrable lost sales" is completely unproven, or even counter-indicated by studies (many of which show filesharers buy more music than average, possibly because they can "try before they buy").

For the first three years (at least) that Big Media was claiming digital piracy was killing its sales, CD/DVD sales were in fact still rising, one year at record levels. They were basically crying wolf - they knew damn well their sales were still going up, but lied and claimed they weren't, so they'd have a big stick to beat piracy with.

Last time I read up on it CD sales had actually finally dropped off slightly (for the first year since they started complaining), and this was again trumpeted by the *AA as entirely due to filesharers. However, they (unlike other studies done at the same time) conveniently ignored the fact that they were in the middle of an economic downturn, sales of the newer music DVDs were climbing at record levels, the internet has made unsigned and indy bands infinitely more accessible to the layman, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of recent "pop" was manufactured, artificial, soulless, meaningless drivel, and people are increasingly starting to realise this.

Basically, they're misrepresenting their position, deliberately. They have yet to prove a single correlation between filesharing and loss of revenue, and many studies don

Session 1: defective CDDA; session 2: WMA+DRM

[tepples]

It is still not DRM, they just screwed with the disk to make it a non-CD that, in same cases still worked as a CD would. DRM involes it being encrypted, so that you need the right key to use it. The software that has this key will ONLY let you do approved things to it.

The discs in question generally have two sessions: one defective CDDA session and one session containing WMA+DRM files.

Re:Session 1: defective CDDA; session 2: WMA+DRM

[serialdogma]

Well I have somewhat been proved wrong.
The only "DRM" CD I have ever had a looked at had an autorun that installed a driver that disables cd ripping, and gave you a little java based player.

Sad, but I have to wonder...

[GrayFox777]

It's a sad thought, but I wonder if any of these 754 people are from Mississippi or Florida, where Katrina hit.
Imagine... you've finally recovered from Katrina's aftermath, but you find out the RIAA sued you just a few days after the hurricane hit! =(

Oh it scarews them for more reasons than that

[Sycraft-fu]

The real reason it scares them is because it threatens to make them, the big labels, obslete. You see digital recording has gotten really cheap these days. You can build a home studio good enough to make professional sounding CDs for less than $5000 including computer, software, hardware, mics and room treatment. No, it won't be what you get at a real recording studio, but it'll be enough. That aside, you can buy time at more professional studios for amounts that most bands can afford, if they try.

Well, previously that wasn't the case, but it didn't really even matter because even if you did have a studio, you had no way to sell your wares without them. Retail chains wouldn't deal with little operations so you had to sign with big music if you wanted anything more than local exposure.

No longer, the Internet gives you the capability to reach the world, and cheaply. Now still most people aren't using it that way, the majority still buy music in stores, but that is changing. More and more are realizing that you can get music on the Internet, legally, and they are very excited.

Now if that move continues, and if indy groups and labels continue to unite in things like http://www.cdbaby.com/ well that represents a very real threat. If you start getting musicians that can just bypass big music entirely, then they are fucked no matter what.

That's the real worry the RIAA members have. Is that society as a whole will realise that it doesn't need them. That musicians will be able to produce their works, with no restraint, and that people will be able to instantly try those works, and buy what they want, without a penny ever going to big music, that scares them more than anything.

And it is comming.

Re:Oh it scarews them for more reasons than that

[tepples]

No longer, the Internet gives you the capability to reach the world, and cheaply. Now still most people aren't using it that way, the majority still buy music in stores, but that is changing.

Is it? What if the demographic of your band's genre happens to correspond to the demographic that tends to use the Internet less often? And what about promotion, given that people spend a lot of their lives inside a moving motor vehicle, especially minor children who aren't allowed to bring "disruptive" MP3 players on school property and therefore must listen to the RIAA music being played over the school bus's radio?

There's compression, and then there's compression.

[tepples]

But is still not the same as uncompressed PCM.

What is the audible difference between a "pristine" stereo audio source sampled at 44.1 kHz and the same audio source encoded at 192 kbps ABR Vorbis? Have you benchmarked codecs against your ears in ABX testing? Besides, if you claim that pop music isn't compressed, you're wrong.

What if the shoe was on the other foot?

[Anonymous Coward]

and I was violating the GPL? Would that be OK because no one has suffered a phyiscal loss of monday?

Re:What if the shoe was on the other foot?

[the_xaqster]

Please, oh Please, make me suffer a physical loss of Monday! That would be sweet!

Re:What if the shoe was on the other foot?

[WilliamSChips]

Comparing P2P infringement to GPL violation is a perfect example of apples-to-oranges.
RIAA's goal: maximize their money and their stranglehold over the industry. GPL's goal: maximize code freedom.

Doesn't matter.

[hackwrench]

There's always more alcohol, and the physical product being gone isn't even the major flaw in the analogy. The major flaw in the analogy is that intellectual material persists in the brain of anyone who encounters it and therefore fails two of the most important features of property, those of being able to control use of the item and of excluding others from the item. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property#General_char acteristics

MOD PARENT UP!

[Spy der Mann]

Either interesting or insightful.

Because you see... it's the perfect example of "only outlaws will use encryption".

Instead, by legalising file sharing, the govt. would give less incentives for people to develop more secure tools that would aid terrorists / etc.

I know, the sole concept of terrorists becoming more powerful because of unrelated government actions is far fetched... but still interesting.

Hopefully most judges will be like this:

[SynapseLapse]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but a very interesting court summary before she got the lawyer:
http://www.godwinslaw.org/weblog/archive/2005/08/2 9/runaround-suits

Silent Majority

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that you are in the majority, you may not be. All the insane (yes literally) elderly can vote. Their numbers are great and they all seem to be old fasioned (or easily led when made afraid)They always vote against legalized drugs.

not to mention the bible belt, whom god just dealt a blow. they don't like drugs either, their drug is jesus ceremonies. More power to them, it is physically healthier than smoking pot or shooting up whatever. alcohol is a drug too. The downside is that it causes them to be hateful of non cult members. I wish them no harm, but I don't share their beliefs. They see this as a contradiction.

Anyway, the most intelligent folks are the minority, so it seems to be the case that this governemnt that follows the will of the majority *IS* doing its job. It is just that the average American is a moron who will never understand human potential.

vote libertarian and convince others to do the same. Or go throught the effort to gain power yourself and make some changes.

Who interprets the Constitution?

[Infonaut]

If the music industry wants to deal in rentals then they should make that clear at the point of sale.

Are you proposing that the downloading and keeping of a practically perfect copy of a music file constitutes a rental, in the same way that rental of a DVD from Netflix does?

As for fair use and copyright law: The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution. In this document, the rights are reserved to the individual authors and inventors. Rights are inalienable. You cannot sell or transfer your Constitutional rights. Admittedly, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of court cases where incompetent attorneys and incompetent judges have breached this natural law. But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.

So are you arguing that contracts between artists and distribution companies are inherently unconstitutional? Are you also arguing that artists only have the option of going through big labels? Perhaps if they want to roll the dice and take a shot at being fabulously wealthy, but there are other options, such as selling music and merchandise direct, as David Lindley knows.

I'm also wary of the assertion that copyright is a "natural law." Are you saying that copyright is primarily a law derived from morality, rather than a law derived from a more utilitarian analysis of commerce? My understanding of American copyright law is that it is based on the idea that by granting individual creators the right to exploit their works for a limited time, then turning those works over to the society at large, the individual is given the incentive to create, and society is also allowed to benefit from that creativity. Whether copyright is a natural right is, at the least, open to debate.

If you believe that "there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of court cases where incompetent attorneys and incompetent judges have breached this natural law" I would assume that you also believe in the "Constitution in Exile" theory of legal interpretation. Are we to view the Constitution purely through our interpretation of how the Founders intended it? If that is the case, the Supreme Court should feel no compunction about turning back the clock on any number of issues including federal government taxes, separation of church and state, civil rights interpretations, and so on.

Re:Who interprets the Constitution?

[SilverspurG]

Are you proposing that the downloading and keeping of a practically perfect copy of a music file constitutes a rental, in the same way that rental of a DVD from Netflix does?

Absolutely. There is only one distinguishing characteristic between a sale and a rental: ownership. If it's a sale, then you have ownership of the item and are not held accountable to the wishes of anyone else concerning the object which is now your property. If it is a rental, then you are still help accountable for their wishes since they retain ownership.

Now, again, when people buy a CD, is it a sale or a rental? If it's a sale, then they have full rights to make use of it as they see fit because they have ownership. This includes sharing. Last I checked, sharing something which you own is not illegal. On the other hand, if the purchase of a CD constitutes a rental where sharing may be restricted by the owner, then that discrepency should be made public at the point of sale and in advertising. No longer should we hear "own your copy today". Rather it should be,"rent your copy which you can keep as long as you like today."

So are you arguing that contracts between artists and distribution companies are inherently unconstitutional?

In the worst case scenario, yes. In a more moderate scenario, suffice it to say that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in the matter unless it is to defend the artist. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the distribution company is the illegitimate aggressor.

In ancient England, if the king wanted something which you owned, he gave you a choice: You can keep your land and give up the item, or he'll burn you out. In today's America, if the industry wants something which you've created, you are given a choice: You can keep your job and give up your IP, or you can choose to get fired (and they'll still keep your IP per your employment agreement).

As I've said before, modern IP law is little more than a kinder, gentler, more well-disguised form of extortion.

I'm also wary of the assertion that copyright is a "natural law."

It's natural in that it's hard coded in the Constitution. It's also natural that, if you don't show anyone else your IP, you have exclusive copyright to products which you make using that IP. It's also natural that, once you give or sell your IP to someone else, they very well may give it to other people that you didn't expect them to give it to. It's natural.

The media industry needs to face reality.

Are we to view the Constitution purely through our interpretation of how the Founders intended it?

Maybe you can. I prefer to stick to the what's actually written in the document. You should also take a close look at the 9th and 10th Amendments. Do you know why they're the 9th and 10th Amendments, the last ones that were written? They're at the end because they're the endcap amendments. They're the Amendments which say "This is it, and no more, unless you write new Amendments." This whole business of expanding the role of government past the core document by reinterpreting individual clauses is specifically forbidden by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Nobody listens, nobody cares. Politicians made an active decision to ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments in the very first meeting of Congress. It's all a sham anyway.

Re:Who interprets the Constitution?

[Infonaut]

Maybe you can. I prefer to stick to the what's actually written in the document. You should also take a close look at the 9th and 10th Amendments. Do you know why they're the 9th and 10th Amendments, the last ones that were written? They're at the end because they're the endcap amendments. They're the Amendments which say "This is it, and no more, unless you write new Amendments." This whole business of expanding the role of government past the core document by reinterpreting individual clauses is specifically forbidden by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

What's actually written in the document is and always has been open to interpretation, which is why we have a Supreme Court. You seem to be asserting that there is only one correct read of the Constitution and the 9th and 10th Amendments, but even a cursory glance at the Wikipedia entry for the 9th Amendment reveals that reasonable minds differ on intepreting it.

Nobody listens, nobody cares. Politicians made an active decision to ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments in the very first meeting of Congress. It's all a sham anyway.

Just because the Constitution hasn't been interpreted to your liking doesn't make the last two hundred years of legislation and legal interpretation a sham. Would you prefer that along with judgements on copyright, we should also throw out judgements on civil rights?

It Shouldn't.

[Famatra]

"Why should some outmoded businesss model be kept alive via legislation?"

It shouldn't, so let's change it.

It would be probably pretty hard though, all the content monopolists would lobby hard (with a lot of money) to prevent copyright being changed to say 7 years with one extension to 14 for a fee.

RIAA and all your legalese is irrelevant

[CherniyVolk]

Musicians want their music heard. Whether or not they get paid, they want their music heard. Some musicians, and bands, PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET for air time on local radio stations.

Downloading an mp3, even if it's from a known musician is NOT stealing. I don't give a hoot what you think the law says, or what it actually says for that matter. The law in this regard is supposed to reflect the feelings of the composers and performers... now, take this scenerio...

You approach Madonna, and say, "Wow, I've listened to all your songs and I'm a huge fan." Hell will freeze over before Madonna demands proof of purchase, or even ask, "Did you buy my CDs or did you just sit by a radio all day long?" About the ONLY thing we might hear a musician pitch is, "Oh, the T-Shirt stand is over there..."

As a musician myself. I will NEVER accept any notion saying that downloading an mp3 is either wrong, or illegal. I'll tell a judge to his face that he and his court is insignificant and irrelevant, without acute vision of the issue at hand then walk the hell out of the court room.

Re:RIAA and all your legalese is irrelevant

[prizo]

Try this: You approach Madonna, and say, "Wow, I've listened to all your songs and I'm a huge fan. I downloaded all of them, and havent spent a dime supporting you. " You don't honestly think that she wouldn't care, do you? Sure you're a musician and don't care, but do you do it exclusively for a living? I bet you don't. I bet you are a hobbyist.

You should learn when to stop (loser).

[Anonymous Coward]

"Losing" is spelled with just one "O". Just thought you'd like to know.

Despite your poor grammar, had you quit after correcting the poster's spelling, you would have been in the clear.

If "loosing" was even a word, it would mean the same thing as "loosening" or "setting free". So if you are sharing the music with everyone, YOU are the one "loosing".

But you couldn't do that, could you? You had to go on and try to belittle the poster. In so doing, you illustrated your own severe intellectual (and social) shortcomings. You end up looking like a fool.

For your information:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=loosing&d b=*

Radio

[Anonymous Coward]

so if listening to music for free on the radio and then copying it onto tape and then giving it to a mate = music sharing....

radio stations are the biggest music sharers of all only difference is you have an index and can pick and choose on a sharing app as opposed to sitting litening to the radio and sweeping the mullet behind the ears while attempting to press play and record at precisely the right time.....

sure it's illegal but there was very little they could do about it. now theres very little they can do about it but they can identify random people as sharers and sue their arses off in an attempt to stop others from doing something they cant really defend agains....

they in the corner trying to get out with wild blows..

having said that i find it even more intresting when you start looking at other weird things that happened....

for instance cherry lane one of the largest sheet music publishers had harmony central/OLGA shut down because .....well im not actually sure why but they won for a few years now OLGA MXtabs etc are all live and running again...

interpretation of music is a little different but how cherry lane managed to get OLGA shutdown on copyright infringement on custome written text files which in alot of cases were more correct than cherry lane's own interpretations ( most music isnt written its played and then recorded on paper after the fact unless your traditionally trained)

accross multiple areas of the music industry they are constanly losing revenue which by my veiw is great....as far as im concerned you cant sell images and sound...you can sell the media and the service but if i choose not to use your service but still get the sound/video then you have not provided me a service and are not entitled to payment. Seems to me like a Shareware concept that got taken down a commercially raping pathway...

perhaps the way i veiw things is a little jilted but hey if i WRITE something I WROTE IT. Im not impeaching on the royalties of the author because I dont have a contract with the author other than to say its their creation. How i get hold of it is not their concern really. Music industry is not run by RIAA the music distribution industry is. sony,emi etc make deals to record on their media and distribution cycle. If it's exclusive to them then i suppose i could be breaching a distribution law but hey it's not like i can read the contracts to find out because they are not public. therefore any contract they have with their distributor is none of my concern and i dont care what it says....

ignorance of the law is not a defence but sharing music is about as illegal as tuning in a radio station to me. If they sue me they will probably win but it would probably be one of the more intelligent defences possible as i am using their creations to market their product for them also...as a cover ban i play other peoples music...in most cases i dont read sheet music etc so i have given even less back to the music industry than ever before but being a musician i with my own contract to distribution chains i would be treated differently.

In general the music industry doesnt care as long as it can function on a similar basis to now...this means they dont care if you sell their music on radio tv cd dvd paper etc as long as they get their "FAIR" share. Unfortunately they dont have control of distribution anymore.....in fact they never really did but its more obvious now as the internet tares down the walls between people around the world. music is not profitable...companies shouldnt try and do anything with the industry anymore just kill off the major labels let the smaller ones fight on new hot prospects and change the distribution method away from Media and onto merchandising and tours....sure ill pay a little more for a live show. but at least the money goes to the people putting on the show not some uber large company thats only real reason for existing is to try and control and distribute something which N

Okay, maybe you can explain this, then...

[Khyber]

On the CD cover itself of any track, or even the cover of a tape, you'll see "Copyright Sony or arista or columbia, etc" Does it say "Copyright RIAA" anywhere on it? No? Didn't think so. So how can the RIAA, not holding the copyright, sue on a company's behalf when they in fact have no legal hold to the copyright in question?

Last I recalled, you couldn't exactly sue someone for somebody else. Example given, some idiot hits my sister's car. I can't sue that idiot over my sister's property, unless my name was on it.

I believe the EXACT same thing should happen with the RIAA. Every case they bring to court should be thrown out and the actual copyright holder should be forced to press the actual lawsuit in a court.

Re:Okay, maybe you can explain this, then...

[Infonaut]

Last I recalled, you couldn't exactly sue someone for somebody else.

The ACLU sues on behalf of people all the time. Class actions are filed by a party on behalf of a class of people (usually customers) frequently as well.

So what about Fair Use and space shifting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I moved to a different Country a few years ago. I left a lot of my Music (Vinyl LPs, Cassette Tapes, Compact Discs and even some 8-tracks) in storage with my family (in my parents and sisters attics).

Given that I am several thousand miles away from my music, music that I have legitimately purchased, why is it so wrong for me to download a copy of a song that I already own so that I can listen to it?

Yes, I have been known to do that, and given that I have purchased those particular pieces of music I can't see what is wrong with my use.

Can you?

iTunes' 30 sec preview sux, but....

[majest!k]

AllofMP3 lets you preview the entire song at 128kbps.. just one of the many reasons I prefer it over iTunes.

Bootleg CD's

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharing is one thing but for every download on the net 100's of thousands of bootleg CD's are created and sold for profit to the bootlegger in China and Russia and sold on the blackmarket and the internet, sometimes even funding terrorism.

Trick them!

[Namronorman]

I say we all share files that are legitimate, but use file names of copyrighted material. Maybe just static similar to what the RIAA did with networks such as Kazaa. Share songs that are highly distorted or non functional. It would be fun to watch them waste their money going to court costs over something as trivial as that.

why? because it's different

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used one of those pay per download sites before. What I got was a 160 kbps wma file of a song that was the 21th of my choice of songs I want to buy. And it's true about those previews. If iTunes gives you about 30 secs, that's generous. I once tried to ID a song by the first ten seconds. Yeah... that was fun... But you know what? I still bought my song. Was it cheap? Yes. Was it easy? If you call installing IE 6, upgrading that, then installing their client, then registering your account name twice easy, then yes.

  I guess my point is. They don't ask you to buy a bottle of gin for every room in the house if you want to drink it nor do they call you a pirate for giving your friends a drink of gin. Or better yet, they don't say you can only drink your bottle of gin in 3 rooms of your house. Or better yet, they don't ask you to buy another bottle of gin if they came out a new sticker for the label.

Oh yes, before anyone deem me a song stealer or RIAA hater. A) I haven't heard/owned a US song in about 4~5 years (let's hear it for being multi-lingal). B) All my foreign songs are from my CDs (yes, they did cost a hell of a lot to get. You try to get a limited edition CD shipped from Japan.) I don't think this is right but, to be frank, this issue doesn't concern me at all. (once again, let's hear it for being multi-lingual.) I was boycotting the RIAA without even knowing that I was doing it.

To everyone who's not multilingual. What can I say? Podcasts and indie music. There's a few bands that sound better/different than all those songs from britrina spearguellia. They're people who, you know, want you to enjoy music.

Pay no attention to the men behind the (law)suits

[Anonymous Coward]

What a surpise... Corporations use the law for which they lobbied... Get over it! Mickey Mouse and Beatles are PROPERTY .
  (Thanks to Bunny Sono, et al.)

If anyone in this discussion really gave a rat's ass about the abuses of copyright, then some small minority would be writing about alternatives (media, broadcast, distribution and communication) instead of whining about the fact that the RIAA is an association dedicated to the status quo. You might even direct some energy to finding out about the recording artists who are succeeding using alternative business models. Alanis morissette and String Cheese spring to mind, the now dead Phish.

CorpExecs use the tools they know... like payola, mass marketing and suits (law or pinstripes). They profit handsomely, and as long as downloaders are down with what they shlep, there's no reason to think that a little corporate discipline won't bring 'em back in line.
  (In the words of George Carlin, "Just whip a little indU$try on 'em." )

As much as any one of you might like to believe otherwise, the problem isn't with the RIAA. They are doing just fine, thank you all very much. The lawsuits are only a herding technique to get you all back in the box.

The problem is outside the box.

Re:Woohoo! 14,000 so far!

[Tim C]

Yes, I feel sorry for all those who got extorted by the RIAA.

Extorted? I fail to see how suing for copyright infringement is extortion. You may argue with the size of the damages claimed, and I'd agree, but the general idea is fair, I think.

The more lawsuits that come from those baffoons the more people will get pissed off and finally start giving a shit about how they are treated.

Don't want to be sued for copyright infringement? Don't infringe copyright. It's really quite simple.

Look at it this way - what if we exchanged RedHat for RIAA and GPL violators for music downloaders. People here are always up in arms (and rightly so) about GPL violations. Well, that's just copyright infringement.

I infer from your post that you wish to see the demise of copyright ("They are the few (soon not so few), the proud, the ones who will help change the system!"). If that happens, there's nothing to enforce the GPL with. People can take source, modify it, slap the binaries in a product and never release the modifications. Sure, you can reverese engineer it, but so what? You can do that now, yet we still scream about GPL violations.

Bottom line is that if you wish people to respect one set of copyrights (those of GPL licensors), you must respect the copyrights of others (eg the RIAA's members).

Besides, it's not like people don't have a choice; they don't have to listen to music. Not that all music is controlled by the RIAA in any case. Don't like them or their business methods? Fine, ignore them; just don't copy their stuff thereby giving them even more exposure.

Well, thats just bullshit...

[msimm]

I'm sure you are a musician and I'm sure you're speaking earnestly, for yourself. Musicians are people, and just like regular people there are ALL types. Idealists, realists, kooks, those driven for success, etc.

I happen to run a free internet radio program so I have the honor of talking to a fairly wide variety of musicians, most of which are happy to do what they can to get their music heard (I'm not doing the site for profit so I ask permission to play the tracks sans royalties, etc; bandwidth already costs me enough).

Anyhow, its not like I don't see where your coming from but I think its over simplifying the issue, I'm sure even Madonna would get pissed after the 100,000th sweaty kid told her he'd downloaded all her music for free and she might have to find a another means to support herself.

What I *am* seeing is the free download (as in encouraged) becoming the new single. But even indie artists can be (and I don't blame them) pretty protective of their music (most seem a bit nervous about being 'featured' with the flash applet I use while their more comfortable with the regular contiguous stream (aka Shoutcast).

$.02

Re:Well, thats just bullshit...

[zakezuke]

Anyhow, its not like I don't see where your coming from but I think its over simplifying the issue, I'm sure even Madonna would get pissed after the 100,000th sweaty kid told her he'd downloaded all her music for free and she might have to find a another means to support herself.

Then the solution is obvious.... don't share or download her music. She made it VERY clear she doesn't approve of file sharing. You can go one step further and not buy anything by Madonna. For me it's not all that hard as i've never been a Madonna fan. I'm sure like other big name artists they'll raise a foot and say "I don't care if you don't buy an album from me" and if so we are agreed. I can not in good conscience support any public figure who's politics I can not agree with, but at the same time I can't i'd ever buy anything by Madonna anyway. Once and a while she has a song that's decent usually written by someone else, but I just can't stand her as a peformer.

But I highly doubt that Madonna would have to find another means of supporting her self. For example in 2002 she earned 20 millionish for using her peformance of "Ray of Light" and another 45ish million extanding her Warner Brothers contract and her business "Drowned World Tours" Not to speak of 7 million in a 1/3 ownership Maverick as of 2002, and publishing royalties. I'm sure my numbers are not 100% accurate, but needless to say I don't think Madonna has to worry about finding a new line of work... at this point in her career she could support her self by farting to the tune of Yankie Doodle Dandy.

Re:Woohoo! 14,000 so far!

[SilverspurG]

If that happens, there's nothing to enforce the GPL with

Hardly. If we had a system without our current screwed up copyright laws, then the GPL wouldn't be necessary. The whole landscape of the computing industry would be completely different and free software wouldn't need to be protected from proprietary marauders. In a system of proper copyright, the free software community and the proprietary community would borrow from each other freely and would contribute to each other inherently.

But you don't see that, because you haven't actually thought about it. The only thing you want to do is take the holier-than-thou road of "if it's illegal, don't do it". Have you ever questioned the legitimacy of that legality? Of course not. Have you looked at the charter document which empowers the government enforcing that legality to see if they have any real jurisdiction in the area? Of course not. Would you even know the difference between a legitimate government and a loosely affiliated system of arbitrary mafioso bosses? Of course not.

So you just keep shilling along. Some of us out here are thinking critically and the day will come when the matter of jurisdiction and legitimacy will come into question.

question...

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't ISPs just time limit their dynamic IP assignments and destroy the records at the end of every billing period? Then just tell the RIAA to go f*ck themselves...

As in: "Sorry, our policy is to keep the records for 30 days, sorry, bettter luck next time..."

It's about money you say?

[diztort]

You don't wont me to illegaly download music? It's about the money you say? Use your fortune to keep Millions of starving children from dying!

Fining 12 year olds is more lucrative

[Jafar00]

I guess convicting and fining 12 year old girls for downloading old Spice Girls tracks is more lucrative than investing in and releasing material by talented musicians these days.

Re:I'm about to make a record and You're wrong!

[coralsaw]

For what it's worth, (my brother) is about to make a record. He's good, he's really really good. And you know what, we don't care a da*mn dime if you pirate our music. Why? I'll give you two blindingly huge reasons why:

- we'll make more money by people getting to know the music, and coming to the gigs, than the pittance (do you actually know the end percentages?) we take of a record-label-produced CD.

- will-be-fans, eyballs and eardrums that care, that pay attention to the music, will go buy the CD anyway even if they have it in .WAV form. Because they like the cover, the CD, the packaging, the printed lyrics, on nice paper, in a nice box. Because it's a moral rule to go buy it. Can you identify with this? I bet you can.

Think for a moment what's the value in buying a work of art (because such it is)?

- because it rocks your world?

- because you care about what it talks?

- because it reminds you of your youth?

- because it makes you look cool?

- ...

If you answer yes to any of the above reasons, you'll be a fan of our music and you'll buy the CD, and you'll come to the gigs, and we'll make money. If all answers are no, then you're just a passing car and we won't make money off you, unless we con you into buying a (payola) single track that's been hyped-up and much-played, and 11 other pieces of crap.

Because this is what happens today with the oligopoly that's called the music industry. Like any other organism, because they reproduce themselves, they (mostly) serve us crap. And will continue to do so unless this fresh wind blows them into the four corners of this world and into the past.

An example?

[commodoresloat]

No; they're making 754 more examples. After several thousand others. After a certain number of "examples", doesn't it become a general strategy? The point is, the examples are not working to scare people away from downloading. This may be well within their rights according to current copyright law, but it is stupid, mean-spirited, and it just shows how out of touch they are with the realities of technology and of the economy of music. As someone else pointed out above, nobody is forcing these people to continue making money from an obsolete business model. And it is shameful that they are willing to call in the government to protect their "right" to make money from such a model, at the point of a gun, especially when said government has so many more important challenges to focus on at the moment.

It's not stealing

[Sean]

I'm tired of these commercials I see on TV that advertise some DVD. they all say, in that voice, you know the one:

"OWN IT TODAY ON DVD"

It should be illegal for them to say that. It's false advertising. If I could actually "own it on dvd" then I could make as many copies as I please. say what you will about piracy of music and movies, but before you give these fuckers the moral highground how about they start telling the TRUTH and say,

"LICENSE IT TODAY ON DVD"

yeah, doesn't quite have the same ring to it, huh?

its just a matter of being reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

no one follows the law all the time. and not all infractions are the same. going 66mph in a 65mph zone is technically a crime. imagine if the fine were 250 thousand dollars for speeding. thats basically the riaa/mpaa with their lawsuits, excessive punishment for a non serious crime. and some people really do buy more music when they are exposed to more music online. some dont of course, but what can you do, they weren't going to pay anyways. its not like piracy should be praised, but it shouldn't be demonized. it isn't realistic. the industry is just alienating their customers with their excessive reaction.

Re:its just a matter of being reasonable

[humberthumbert]

>going 66mph in a 65mph zone is technically a crime.

    Yup. And if you get caught don't whine about it.
  Same goes for piracy. Don't do the crime if you aren't prepared to do the time. Or to change the laws.

>thats basically the riaa/mpaa with their lawsuits, excessive punishment for a non serious crime.

    But nobody forced the caught/convicted pirates to pirate, right? Too fucking bad they got caught.

>and some people really do buy more music when they are exposed to more music online.

  Quote some figures, please. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

>some dont of course, but what can you do, they weren't going to pay anyways.

    Yup. They are cheap shits. But they keep insisting they are somehow "fighting da MAN" or something. Give me a break.

>its not like piracy should be praised, but it shouldn't be demonized. it isn't realistic.

    I'm not demonizing it. If you're read what I have written, I am a pirate myself. I simply cannot stand those who continue to insist that they are helping the artistes when they pirate. This is blatantly false.

    The creators of stuff I pirate don't get anything from me.

>the industry is just alienating their customers with their excessive reaction.

  Yup. Agreed. But it's not a perfect world. Maybe someday we'll all get along huh. But before that, let's be honest with ourselves first.

Those statistics are not meaningful

[DJScrib]

-People who download music illegally, purchase more music than people who don't download illegal music. This I can accept as a fact. -This means downloading music illegally must promote the sale of music. This I disagree with heartily. Let's use an analogy. -People who poach deer also spend more money on legal hunting licenses than people who don't poach dear. -This means deer poaching encourages purchasing licenses through the Fish and Wildlife commission. OR -People interested in deer hunting are more likely to both Poach deer and to buy hunting licenses from time to time. Apply that to music. -People who have a high interest in music are likely to both purchase, and illegally download music. -People with a lower interest in music buy less and download little. (Many opting to stick with the radio)

Re:I'm about to make a record and You're wrong!

[humberthumbert]

>- we'll make more money by people getting to know the music, and coming to the gigs, than the pittance (do you actually know the end percentages?) we take of a record-label-produced CD.

    Yes I know about the percentages. However, bear in mind that in many countries, such as mine, there are no gig circuits to speak of. They only want cover bands here. It is hard for a musician to make a living here by giving all his stuff away for free. Most of the good musicians I know end up giving lessons or playing in shitty pubs for a pittiance.

    I never said that the RIAA's deal was anything but raw. But that still doesn't make it right to pirate their shit.

    See, your brother wants to give his stuff away. That is his choice. Good for him. But plenty of artistes do not want to give their stuff away. I don't see why some Slashdotter's think it is their divine right to "sample" everything under the sun for free.

>- will-be-fans, eyballs and eardrums that care, that pay attention to the music, will go buy the CD

    Well, I hope your brother can recoup his recording costs, gear purchases/rental, travel expenses, and other day-to-day costs. I sure as hell won't depend on people to be moral in this day and age.

>If all answers are no, then you're just a passing car and we won't make money off you, unless we con you into buying a (payola) single track that's been hyped-up and much-played, and 11 other pieces of crap.

    I agree. But some Slashdotters want to have their cake and to eat it too. They claim to hate the RIAA and support the artistes...by pirating?

>Because this is what happens today with the oligopoly that's called the music industry. Like any other organism, because they reproduce themselves, they (mostly) serve us crap. And will continue to do so unless this fresh wind blows them into the four corners of this world and into the past.

  I certainly hope so. But we should still respect the rights of artistes to license/sell their work any way they see fit. Your bro wants to give it away. Others want to sell it for big $$$. I don't see any problem other then the hypocritic fucks who want to pretend they are helping those in the 2nd group when they "sample" their wares.

Why I don't feel it to be a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up in an environment where sharing music is normal. It may be illegal, but I don't feel guilty when I snap an mp3 from .... My mind just doens't consider it to be an criminal offence. But I have never and would never (under normal circumstances) steal "a bottle of gin" in a shop. I would however, consider it a crime to sell illegal cd's.

Want some cheese with those whines?

[pandrijeczko]

I'm no fan of the RIAA (or its equivalent in the UK, the BPI) but to all those of you who think the RIAA is doing something wrong, why don't you get up from behind your computer screens and *actively* do something to fight back?

How about just *not buying* any DVDs or CDs? How about emailing the RIAA, the film producers and the record companies and tell them you're not buying their products because they're overpriced?

It doesn't matter how many times this discussion appears on Slashdot, the RIAA is not going to take a blind bit of notice until people start to hit them where it really hurts - in the wallet.

I personally use music downloading as a "try before I buy scheme" now - if I like it, I buy it because nothing beats having a nice shiny CD in a nice shiny case with some nice music on it; otherwise I delete it because it's just not worth the space on a hard disk or CDR.

With movies, I read reviews and go to the cinema or buy the DVD only when I am sure it's worth the money.

In both cases, rip-off high street stores like HMV or Virgin get *none* of my money unless they have prices that compete with on-line music and movie vendors.

As a result, I spend about 1/3 of what I used to spend on CDs, movies and DVDs and I'm now much happier with what I buy.

Unfortunately, it's the "sheeple" of the world that just sit there blindly consuming everything the music and movie companies churn out that are the problem - if we were all a lot more careful with what we spent our money on, this would send a very powerful message back to these companies and allow us, the consumer, to dictate what are fair prices and what we deem good quality products.

Re:Want some cheese with those whines?

[Anonymous Coward]

With movies, I read reviews and go to the cinema or buy the DVD only when I am sure it's worth the money.

In both cases, rip-off high street stores like HMV or Virgin get *none* of my money unless they have prices that compete with on-line music and movie vendors.

As a result, I spend about 1/3 of what I used to spend on CDs, movies and DVDs and I'm now much happier with what I buy.

Guess what buddy, you're still contributing. So get the fuck off your high horse and stop buying RIAA-label CDs all together. And quit throwing your money at the MPAA while you're at it. I don't care if stores like Virgin are cheaper than elsewhere, I won't buy shit there for the life of me. And I haven't purchased an RIAA-label CD is at least 10 years. So quit acting like you're something special, you're funding their lawsuits.

Re:Want some cheese with those whines?

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't you get up from behind your computer screens and *actively* do something to fight back? How about just *not buying* any DVDs or CDs?

Just wondering what definition of "actively" is being used here, if *not* doing something fits the bill...

Re:Want some cheese with those whines?

[pandrijeczko]

Guess what buddy, you're still contributing.

...and your point is?

Beyond downloading a few MP3s from Usenet to "try before I buy", I don't pirate so what do I care what the RIAA does? And if they stop MP3s on Usenet, then I won't get to try and won't buy... it won't be my loss.

So get the fuck off your high horse and stop buying RIAA-label CDs all together.

Why should I? If I'm getting a good piece of music at what I consider a fair price, why do I care who the money goes to ultimately? So they half the price of CDs, I potentially get to buy twice as many - but I'll still select carefully & buy only what I consider to be good music.

I *DO* care if a CD is copy protected & have taken back those CDs to vendor as "unfit for purpose" if I can't make my own MP3s or play them on a PC. And, believe me, I have stood there and complained until I've got my money back...

I don't care if stores like Virgin are cheaper than elsewhere, I won't buy shit there for the life of me.

Suit yourself - me, I'm just a discerning consumer. I'll look for the best price & if it's in a Virgin or HMV, then I'll buy it there. It's a rare occurrence, admittedly, but I just want the best value for my hard-earned cash.

And I haven't purchased an RIAA-label CD is at least 10 years.

That's your choice but then I choose my music based on what's pleasant to my ears and not deny myself missing something I might like purely because of having to make a political statement.

So quit acting like you're something special, you're funding their lawsuits.

I consider anyone who makes informed decisions as "special". Unfortunately, far too many people are taken in by media advertising these days and are parted with their money too easily. It's those "sheeple" who make it bad for the rest of us because they just "consume" what gets churned out to them rather than exercising discretion and self-control.

If we were all more discerning, these big corporations that fund the RIAA would have less money to do so because they would get less money from us consumers.

And that just about p*sses all over your argument.

the losing battle of the **AA's

[N3wsByt3]

I have said it before, and I'll say it again: The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.

First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?

It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.

And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.

And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet or i2p).

It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.

But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.

New ways of thinking?

[gallondr00nk]

For Gods sake, file sharing isn't all about stealing the latest Mariah Carey album. If you want to avoid being prosecuted, stop downloading music published by the big multinationals, EMI, RCA, Time-warner, etc. etc. You aren't missing out on anything. 90% of my collection is from artists who aren't signed up to this draconion bullshit, and it's a damn sight better then any of the trash the major labels are trying to spew onto me. With the moving of p2p into the mainstream the RIAA only exists to scare off warez kiddies, who have enough money to buy the albums anyway. If you buy into the corporation, you have to live with it. Same goes for anyone who downloads material from them. Just say no kids. Get it on tape instead

Framing the debate

[Chris Snook]

Repeat after me: "Unlicensed copying is not theft."

Really. Unlicensed copying is not theft. Nor is personal downloading piracy. Piracy, in matters of copyright, is when you sell unlicensed copies of a work, thereby denying the authorized publisher and the author revenue from customers who without question would have made a purchase, as they purchased it from you. Congress has never passed a law explicitly criminalizing personal downloading, and if they actually intended for a law which provides for $250,000 fines to apply to copying a $15 CD, once, then that law would certainly fail the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. This isn't just me talking, you'll see comments to this effect in several judicial rulings related to copyright infringement.

I'm seeing comments in this thread trying to compare the freeloaders to people who actually break into someone's house and steal their stuff. That's not what's going on here at all. The recording industry has engaged in a long term effort to brainwash us all into believing that it is a matter of natural law that we do not have the right to copy information. In fact, the clause in the constitution explicitly permitting copyrights and patents reflect that those who crafted the constitution saw that as a matter of natural law we should be able to do whatever we please with our information, and Congress had to be explicitly authorized to restrict this. Copying can be fair use, or it can be civil or criminal infringement.

So, why are they trying to crack down on the very same downloading that's driving revenue? It's all about power. They want to control everything you do with their content. They want to ram DRM down your throat so far that you can't play any content that they or their allies have not (cryptographically) signed, which implies any content produced by someone they have not contractually signed. Extreme laws are passed only in response to perceived emergencies, so they're creating an emergency.

The Carnival is Over

[ajs318]

Once upon a time, the record companies had something that the general public did not: the ability to manufacture records. Thanks to this, it was possible for a few people to get rich selling records -- and some of the people who actually performed on the records even got a tiny cut of the money.

Today, anyone can make their own CDs. The record companies are no longer the only ones with this ability, and they aren't happy about it. And they have the gall to hide behind artists not being compensated ..... as though the record companies weren't the ones who got the lion's share of the price of a CD and made their fortune off the back of other people's talent.

The well has run dry. People in the past put up with paying money for 78s, because that was all there was; and later, LPs, because although by that time there were such things as tape recorders they were either awkward {open reel} or limited fidelity {cassettes} and so LP was still better. When the Compact Disc came out, people not only bought new CDs; they even spent money buying CDs of the exact same material they already owned on LPs. {Of course, the LP replacement market is finite -- and probably has already run its course by now}.

The only certain way to prevent people from copying CDs is for there not to be any CDs to copy. So this is what I'm suggesting: it is time for the music industry to pack its tent away and go home. I am not going to deny for a second that it was good fun while it lasted, but everything has to come to an end sometime. People were making music before there was a recording industry. What reason is there to suppose that they will not continue making it long after the recording industry is gone?

The quantity of music available might decrease {no more manufactured boy bands, yeaay!}, but the quality should improve if all musicians are doing it just for the love of making music. Bands might even do better without the record companies: anyone {at least, anyone who doesn't work for Sony Music} will tell you that touring, not album sales, is the real money earner.

Anyone who makes music today with the expectation and intention of getting compensated for it is a prat. We are all grown ups and we all know exactly what goes on. For crying out loud, it's the exact same instinct that makes you want to get paid, that makes people not want to pay you! So if you, as a musician, really can't stand the idea of people listening to your music without paying you for it then don't make music in the first place. Find another way to feed your family. It's as simple as that.

Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, IANAL but I know this at least:

In the UK, the definititon of theft is 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.' I think that's pretty close to the exact wording.

Notice the emphasis? These guys constantly compare filesharing to theft, but do they actually ever prosecute anyone for theft? Of course not - they know that they are deliberately using inflammatory terms to provoke an emotional response which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Sure, there is no doubt a legal infringement occurring, but it ain't theft by any stretch of the imagination.

(BTW, I am assuming they have not attempted to actually claim theft in a court of law. If anyone knows better, please correct me)

(OT) Re:LOL

[databyss]

Excellent thread!

This is a shining example of what slashdot should be. If only there were more fine people like yourself.

Intelligent conversations that down break down into bullshitting and name calling. Unfortunately, this is too rare around here.

Just what did the study show?

[NewStarRising]

" I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

You mean the study that showed that the people who buy music are more likely to commit copyright infringements than people who do not buy music? Showing that the RIAA are RIGHT to sue their customers, as it is their customers who are ripping them off?

And people who like movies are not only more likely to buy movies, but also more likely to illegally obtain movies than people who do not like movies.

Well, gosh!

Some numbers showing a correleation between people who legally buy music and people who illegally obtain music DOES NOT mean that buying music causes piracy. Nor does it show that piracy causes music sales.
It shows that there is an overlap of "people who legally buy music" and "people who illegally obtain music". Some people draw one set of conclusions, other people draw another set. The study is proof of neither.

  And also, IMHO, when people are asked why they knowingly break the law, they will try to come up with a justification, even if they know it to be untrue.
"Do you illegally download music?
"yes"
Do you buy music?"
"Erm ... oh, yes ... erm ... lots ... erm ... in fact, downloading makes me buy more music ... erm, yes, thats it. Please don't sue me!"

Can we get past the idea that because a study shows that green cars are involved in more accidents that all green cars are inherently unsafe to drive?
You know it's bollox, i know it's bollox, so lets drop it, alright?

Re:Just what did the study show?

[Anonymous Coward]

um I think you need to re-take that logic class

if a then b != if b then a

people who share music illegally are more likely to spend money on music legally != people who spend money on music are more likely to share music illegally

way to twist the logic to make your point. You work for the RIAA right?

Re:Just what did the study show?

[NewStarRising]

The point I was trying to make is that just because a person does two things does not mean that one causes the other. (Or that the other causes the one).

By showing the fallacy of one assumption, it reveals the fallacy of the other.
The study that the summary refers to shows no causality between legally obtaining music and illegally obtaining music. It shows that there are a number of people who do both. (or at least say they do).

Understand now?

Oh hubert

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet they made that movie "The forty year old virgin" about you.

good for the riaa

[suezz]

but I don't really think this is helping any. The real thieves are still going to steal and they will never catch them.

all this is doing is tarnishing their reputation with the honest buying music people.

I still just buy cds and make copies and keep the original in a safe spot. I will not buy anything online just because I do not know how they determine how you are stealing and I just don't feel like dealing with lawyers and the possibility of getting sued. I am currently working on moving my records to cd - will they sound as good as if I bought a cd - probably not - but I get the satisfaction of not giving my money again to these so-called-legal crooks.

Here is a few suggestions for the riaa/mpaa and I think it will save them money.

Why don't they just create their own music store where they charge $.50 a song or $5.00 an album and $10.00 for any specialty album or double album. And have this without any drm or make the drm they use available on ALL platforms - Unix, Windows, Apple. This has got to be less expensive than all these lawsuits and the ill-will that is created. Second, MPAA should do the same with DVD players make one for ALL platforms as above.

I truely believe that if they did this this would put a bigger dent into stealing than all of these lawsuits.

Because they're idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

"most seem a bit nervous about being 'featured' with the flash applet I use"

Because they're idiots.

Lets face it; most of the world thinks way too highly of their so-called "IP".

All those pictures from New Orleans? Newpapers are putting them in flash so you can't copy them (snigger).

What's funny is the thought that they need to "protect" those pictures... against what.... people looking at them????

Morons. All of these people are morons.

Ethanol? Try biodiesel

[tepples]

It ended when alternative fuels started to catch on -- specifically "gasahol." It was really soon after gasahol started flowing from the pumps that the fuel crisis came to an inexplicable end

Gasohol, or gasoline mixed with ethanol, is likely not to save us a second time. A study by Cornell and UC Berkeley has found that turning corn into ethanol takes 29 percent more energy than the fuel produced, not even counting the energy that goes into growing the corn itself. This time, biodiesel looks more promising, with a 320 percent ROI for production of biodiesel from rap^W canola seeds.

As for how this pertains to the "music crisis": Demand for music sold by RIAA labels is fueled primarily by commercial FM radio, whose playlists are dictated by major labels through deceptively named "independent promoters" and which children are often forced to listen to on the bus ride to and from school. Once the price of energy rises, will your typical 50 kW commercial FM radio station continue to be able to afford 1200 kWh per day to transmit RIAA music? Or is the cost of transmitter power insignificant next to the station's labor and music royalties?

Re:Ethanol? Try biodiesel

[amper]

Well, that 50kW station doesn't have a 100 percent efficient transmitter does it? Nor is the transmitter power the only usage of electricity in a radio station. It takes all sorts of ancillary equipment to enable that transmitter to transmit.

Anyway, let's say that the main transmitter is 50% efficient, or uses 100kW. So, that's 2400kWh/day at, say $0.10/kWh (avg. US price), or $240.00/day, or $87,600/year for electricity just to run the main transmitter. This is probably about what one halfway decent engineer makes as salary, so I'd say the cost of transmitter power is probably pretty insignificant compared to other costs.

A 50kW station in the US is most likely an AM band Class A, clear channel station that has a major share of it's market (think KYW Philadelphia, KDKA Pittsburgh, WABC New York, etc.). These stations make a lot of money. Even on the FM side, there are not that many stations that transmit at 50kW, and all of these will be fairly large stations in their markets, as well. Shortwave stations are another matter, entirely.

Songwriter?

[tepples]

Fifty cents a tune, twenty five to the artist, twenty five to the distributor.

Then how would the artist split her 25 cents with the songwriter?

Labels are for putting on boxes.

Boxes are the form in which probably well over 99 percent of the music purchased from Wal-Mart is purchased, as either CD purchases in store or CD purchases on walmart.com, not 88 cent WMA+DRM downloads on walmart.com.

Re:Songwriter?

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Hey it was only an example. I'm not going to draw up a profit and loss account for the operation!

But remove the middleshark and I find it hard to see how the majority would fail to gain.

And big names at low prices could give the New World Order the kick start it needs. When wax discs first came out, nobody had phonographs. When CDs first came out, nobody had CD players. you can hardly say the same for people who have the Web.

The RIAA has a captive audience

[tepples]

Now, the Internet makes unnecessary and replaces the marketing, advertizing, and distributing functions of the RIAA.

How can I expose myself to the marketing of independent music when I'm riding in a motor vehicle? If I turn on the radio, all I get is RIAA music.

What really sickens me...

[Thumper_SVX]

Is not the lawsuits themselves, but the fact that the RIAA doesn't realize that people aren't buying their product these days because quite frankly it sucks.

Have you listened to the radio lately? No, neither have I. Well, that's not entirely true... with the summer season upon us I started riding my motorcycle around instead of my car. No radio. The other day when I was having a dead-battery problem on my bike I drove my car for the first time in a while... and listened to the radio. It was almost like I'd never left. Most of the songs were the same plastic crap that was being played 4 months ago when I last listened to the radio, and that stuff that was new was barely distinguishable from the older stuff that played "around" it.

I would be the first to admit that there's the occasional gem on the radio these days, but I think the last album I purchased was The Killers. No, it's not because I download RIAA music; actually I download a lot of indie music that's available on the net for download "with the promise to buy our album" sort of thing. The independent recordings are usually decent quality MP3's, and if I like them I'll order the album DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE. I don't need a record store any more. If I want a nice CD in a jewel case... hell, most of the indy bands out there can afford to stamp a hundred CD's that are nicely labelled... jewel cases are incredibly cheap... and modern decent color printers can make awesome inlays. Hell, for a couple hundred bucks you can buy a color laser printer these days!

So why do I need the RIAA again? Generally they represent companies that take the same crap that was successful last year and recycle it into this years "pop sensation". It's gotten to the point that I don't even know who this years "hot acts" are because I can't distinguish them from last year's lot.

And no, this isn't because I'm "getting old". I still listen to new music and still expand my horizons into new fields any time I can. I buy music not because it's "what I liked last year" but because I've been given a lead on it by a friend and downloaded a LEGAL MP3, Ogg or WMA from the band's own website and I like their stuff. If I don't like their stuff then I can delete the file, not buy the album and then no-one loses.

The RIAA needs to realize their business model is flawed. They're not going to survive much more than a few more years unless the member companies of the RIAA change their thinking on what opportunities new technologies represent. Honestly I think we're just seeing the last dying gasps of a business model that's bleeding from fatal wounds but hasn't stopped moving yet.

Of course, here on /. I'm sort of preaching to the choir.

Re:Perhaps the RIAA is simply better at data analy

[slavemowgli]

There's another point that the submitter is missing: the RIAA is not actually interested in you buying music online in legitimate ways.

What the RIAA wants you to do is buy a CD with ten songs on it for 20 or 30 bucks - not buy the two songs on that CD that you actually like for 99 cents each from iTunes.

This is how they used to make those vast amounts of money - sell you what you want, but bundle it with lots of other stuff you don't want but that inflates the price several times. iTunes etc. ultimately give users a finer-grained control over what they do and don't purchase, which means that the RIAA will make less money. They know they can't really shut down services like iTunes altogether, as the oft-heard claim that people would download music in legal ways if only there *was* a legal way does indeed have some truth in it, but what they really want is to go back to a distribution model where you're forced to spend money on things you don't want in order to get the things you do want.

Would you like to know a secret?

[Psyqlone]

1. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!

This merits repeating. The MPAA and RIAA are NOT ARTISTIC ASSOCIATIONS!

Admittedly, they are "industry" organizations, but this also implies that they represent industry interests, which are not always the same as artists' interests. In both cases, you've got lawyers and legal staffers, who serve the interests of distribution companies, financiers, studios, you get the idea.

2. The MPAA and RIAA exist in large measure to perpetuate and protect obsolete business models. It's partially driven (obscured?) by goals of being able to exact revenue from each viewing, each session, each "show". In their minds, this was the way it's supposed to work. I'd like to think they're bright enough to realize they can't keep doing business in quite the same way, but they can't even see which way they are going. It isn't only the technology they don't understand, but those "suits" don't understand the nature of offering the sort of entertainment that makes audiences want to see more, but not necessarily more of the same.

3. ...lest we forget, the entertainment industry moved to California first to dodge their creditors in the east, secondly to avoid paying tax debts, but also to avoid paying royalties to Thomas Edison. Edison and company invented the production and post-production equipment on which the American film and sound recording industries modified to their own specifications.

Of course the less polite version alleges that they ripped off Edison outright. ...can't be as morally reprehensible as copyright infringement, right?

Re:Would you like to know a secret?

[compu73rg33k]

I'm just wondering why there isn't a press release on their site...? Anyone know?

All four of your ways to sample have fatal flaws.

[tepples]

You can go sample albums at a shop

If I break the shrinkwrap, I am obligated to buy the album, right? And what if the CD that I want to sample isn't sold in any shop within bus distance of my home?

from a friend

No. If the friend sends me a sample of an album through e-mail, AIM, HTTP, or any other digital phonorecord delivery mechanism, it's still copyright infringement.

at a library

OK, so I search the library's catalog with artist and title. What should I do for "0 results found"?

or even buy and return an album from a store

And get another copy of the same title back. The stores don't do refunds or exchanges for a different title anymore.

For once, a duopoly is better than competition

[tepples]

The Big 5 corporations represented by the RIAA

Four. Sony bought BMG.

really don't have a clue. Their various research departments are implementing 31 different, and incompatible, flavors of DRM

There are two DRM systems used by most major record labels: FairPlay (Apple AAC + Apple DRM) and PlaysForSure (Microsoft WMA + Microsoft DRM). Where do you get 31?

Re:For once, a duopoly is better than competition

[Catamaran]

Four. Sony bought BMG.

Thank you for the correction.

Where do you get 31?

31 Flavors? like the ice cream shop? I was being facetious, but from what I know about Sony, they really do have numerous research departments all implementing different flavors of DRM, 99% of which will never see actual production, and none of which will save them from their inevitable decline.

Definition of Theft

[Khyber]

Legally the definition of theft goes something like this, (Having been incarcerated for "Comspiracy to Witness Theft" I'm in quite a nice position to talk about this.)

Theft implies something worth value was wrongfully stolen from the owner, wherein such taking of an item causes damages to the owner. If damages cannot be proven, or are falsified, then you can sue their ass right back.

In this case, a good idea would be instead of allowing the **AA to discredit you in court, you need to do turnabout. Show how the companies are not losing money whatsoever, and are in fact GAINING more money. Yanno, I'm sure they keep things called profit reports, and most likely, it's quarterly. You've got nice three-month sales records that you can browse and peruse, then discredit the companies in court when they try to sue you. They need to be able to prove actual, monetary damages, and those damages should show in the quarterly profit reports/projections. If they don't, where's the damage? (BTW, this is how the person that was caught with me got with his crap while I was incarcerated. He proved no damages actually happened, while I'm unable to prove that I did not conspire to watch him steal something. Even though I was on the other side of the property, about fifty feet from the property line, taking a piss in some bushes, with a huge concrete building in my way of seeing my friend. Gotta love screwy MS law. 30 years out of date and counting.)

Car insurance

[tepples]

Yes, but are there LEGAL means of having a second copy handed to you by the RIAA?

Yes. It's called a rider to car insurance, making sure you have enough additional coverage to cover your personall effects when your car is broken into.

Re:Woohoo! 14,000 so far!

[FlynnMP3]

Personally, I haven't purchased a CD in nearly 10 years. I rarely listen to the radio either. Most music I have is from before the era of RIAA wrath and before I realized the implications of the GPL and Free Software.

Partly, I don't buy because I haven't heard anything new that is to my liking. I did buy a couple songs in iTunes. Those were songs from 1970's music CDs I have, which are so horribly scratched they are unplayable on the songs that I wanted to save. I didn't want to purchase the CDs again and support the music cartel, so I picked the least expensive legal option. If I do purchase more music at some point it will certainly be under duress. I don't share music other than loaning CDs to friends occasionally, and I don't download music from the Internet either.

I feel the GPL and the Free Software movement is slowly changing the ideals of the world when it comes to Intellectual Property. It will take a few decades for these ideals to seep into the collective consciousness of non-internet people, but it will happen.

In the end, my previous post is about the slow but unyielding process of big business trying to repress and control their customers. It is happening now, but not to wide scale yet. When it does start to step up, or they sue the wrong person (that'll also happen) then a bit of progress into changing the system will happen. More people will become aware of the draconian measures big business will go to to protect their revenue. Slowly the wheel turns, but the system will change.

If it was only about copyright infringment I would agree with your post. As we both know, it is not only about copyright infringment.

-FlynnMP3

Downloading is LEGAL in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, the No Electronic Thieft Act says that unless you download (iirc) over $2,000 worth of goods in a six month period you're legal.

So not only are you not "stealing" (as many posts below this point out) you're not even breaking the law!

What is illegal is UPLOADING copyright material without permission. The gov deems this "broadcasting," and this is what the file sharers are being sued for.

You can fileshare to your heart's content, just be sure your "share folder" contains only material the artists/authors WANT shared. My own share folder contains hundreds of great indie tunes that the artists would love for you to hear, as well as FOSS, freeware, and shareware.

And many of these indie tunes have the same titles as completely different RIAA junk. I've found lots of good music looking for one file but finding a different one by mistake. Search for "scatterbrain" with your P2P, for example, there are hundreds of different songs with that title spanning decades.

Why in the hell would I share RIAA crap? In the first place most of the tunes I hear on the radio are pure garbage. In the second place I hate the RIAA, why on earth would I want to promote their evil trash?

If the RIAA sues you, you're being sued for ignorance. What's evil is that the media, government, NOBODY is trying to educate you.

As to your gin, it's illegal to make your own, but beer is another matter. If I make my own beer am I stealing from Busch?

As to your 30 second clips, they're worse than useless. Several years ago, before the RIAA started suing people, I heard Santanna had a new CD out. I used to be a Santanna fan back in the day (Abraxis is an awesome album) so I logged in to one of the places that sell CDs online that have your 30 second clips.

I listened to all of them and decided that Santanna had lost the magic, and declined to buy the CD.

My oldest daughter knew I had old Santanna albums and bought the new one for me for Xmas. Guess what? It mostly rocked! The 30 second clips lost a sale I would have made had I heard the whole CD.

BTW, which record label do you work for, shill?

Customers?

[mpost4]

Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of.

Is this like saying that if I shop at a convenience store, then as a customer I should be offended that I get charges filed against me for robbing it? That just doesn't make sense.

There's no "customers" having lawsuits filed against them. None.

Re:Customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

omg

people who share music spend more money buying music than people who don't.

they are suing people who spend more money on music than the average music buyer.

copyright infringement does not equal theft.

please go back to school and learn the basics before posting again. everyone lost 10 IQ points reading your post.

Re:Customers?

[mpost4]

people who share music spend more money buying music than people who don't.

Maybe those who rob banks have bigger bank accounts then those who don't. Does that make a bank robber a "customer."

No, I'm for stopping illegal filetrading no matter how big a "customer" someone is.

Re:I'm about to make a record and You're wrong!

[Kythe]

See, your brother wants to give his stuff away. That is his choice. Good for him. But plenty of artistes do not want to give their stuff away. I don't see why some Slashdotter's think it is their divine right to "sample" everything under the sun for free.

Frankly, it sounds to me like the real problem you have is with artists who "give their stuff away", enabling people to sample everything under the sun for free, as opposed to people who download it. To my mind, that is also the RIAA's real position.

And for the record, I don't think artists who give away recordings are "giving their stuff away". They're giving away recordings of their stuff. The actual stuff of value is experiencing the artists making the music--there's nothing like it. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Is there a Netflix for music CD's?

[Psyqlone]

Is there such a thing?

...if not, why not?

Re:Is there a Netflix for music CD's?

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Probably wouldn't be economical with shipping cost. That, and the *AA has bought laws making lending of audio CDs for profit illegal, IIRC.

p2p file sharing no different than buying used CDs

[Kodack]

From the point of view of denying the recording company of revenue, how is peer 2 peer file sharing any different from the used music market? A new CD is pressed. Someone buys it and the record company gets money. That person listens a few months and then sells it to a used CD store and gets some of his money back. The CD is sold the next day to someone and the store gets some money back but the record company gets no money for the transaction. So when you buy used music the record companies get nothing for it. By buying used music instead of new music you are denying the record companies money . Now the p2p version. Someone buys a new CD and the record company gets money. The person copies the CD and puts up mp3's on kazaa lite. People download copies of the CD but neither the person nor the record company get money. In this scenario it is the buyer who gets short changed. In both scenarios the record companies get squat past the initial purchase. You can't argue that p2p is 'theft' because it denies the record companies revenue. There are plenty of perfectly legal ways to listen to music that also deny the companies revenue and we don't call them theft. Is it stealing when you rent a DVD instead of buying it? If you rent, then Blockbuster gets some money but the movie studios don't. When you buy a DVD they make more money. How is this any different? You cannot call something which does not deprive a person of property 'theft'. If I copy a song it does not destroy the original. When our forefathers instituted copyright it was for 7 years and was meant as a method for an individual to recover money for their contribution. Now we have 90year copyrights. And you wonder why people copy music?

Irrelevant

[StopSayingYouSir]

I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

And another slashdotter tries to conflate correlation with causation. This "study" fails to answer the only relevant question: how much money would they have spent on music otherwise?

I buy more commercial beer than the average person, even though I'm also a homebrewer. This doesn't mean that I buy more commercial beer because I'm a homebrewer; it simply means that I really like the stuff, and I will tap into a variety of sources to satisfy my appetite for it. Thus, if I didn't homebrew my own, I would buy more commercial beer, not less.

s/commercial beer/legal music/
s/homebrew/download/

You cannot own their music

[UnapprovedThought]

So how is it not a purchase?

Case 1:

Try to sell it to someone on ebay. Let's say that, to save time and shipping charges for both of you, you make a digital copy instead, and agree to send it in that form to the buyer and destroy the disk afterward. Can you do that with your legally owned property? No. You can be sued for that.

Case 2:

A CD you bought comes with copy protection. It doesn't play on your portable CD player. So, to get it to work with your equipment, you are forced to break the copy protection and make a copy of the music so it will play on your CD equipment. You have just violated the DMCA. Go to jail, do not pass GO.

Case 3:

You want to take a number of songs on several CDs and move your favorites to one CD for convenience. Sorry, the RIAA says you can't do that.

Case 4:

A song comes out in a new format. You decide to copy it to that new format yourself from the old format that you already own, instead of buying the song from the manufacturer in the new format. Once again you have "stolen."

Case 5:

You live in a different region from a DVD you legally purchased in your visit to another country. How do you legally get it to work on the equipment you legally purchased? You can't.

Conclusion

You can't do any of those fair and reasonable things legally, so that property wasn't really yours was it? It comes with limitations of normal ownership rights. All of those things you could have been able to do to your own recording of birds chirping or something. So, clearly, it is not full ownership, there is a difference.

Copyright is not an inalienable right

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution. In this document, the rights are reserved to the individual authors and inventors. Rights are inalienable.

The rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press are inalienable, in the Declaration of Independence sense.

Copyright is not inalienable. It's an optional artificial incentive that is anti-free-speech and anti-free-market in nature. Despite what the *AAs might like you to believe, copyright is not based on any natural property right in works. (That's true whether the copyright holder is an author/artist, or one of the big entertainment corporations.)

As an incentive, copyright is something we can (theoretically) alter at will, whereas even a Governmental repeal of the First Amendment could not take away the right of free speech. (It comes from a source outside of Government, and all that the Government can do is to honor it, or to infringe upon it.)

Corporations as entities

[Infonaut]

The one thing I think that would be a step in the right direction is if corporations were no longer legally recognized as a separate entity but the product of actions by the CEO, Board of directors, etc and they are held liable for the criminal and civil misdeeds of the corporation.

I agree 100%. Your point about not really caring about music gets to the bottom of my argument, which is that much of the furor over P2P filesharing is really about a much larger issue. People want to change the role of and power of corporations in America, but most of the time they won't admit that's what they're after.

Downloading zillions of songs for free is an easy way to stick it to The Man, but it's not exactly a principled approach, and it's not necessarily going to lead to the desired outcome.

Personally my biggest problem with copyright law as it stands is the duration of copyright. The Disney copyright extensions have led to an absurd situation, particularly given the pace of American society, wherein by the time a copyright expires, the value of the copyrighted material has been radically diminished. The vast majority of copyrighted material doesn't even create real revenue for the copyright holders. But they get the copyright for free, with no action required on their part. The material just sits there languishing for decades.

I'm also very purturbed at the chilling effect problem with sampling. As Kimbrew McCleod explains in Freedom of Expression it is now far easier and less expensive to record a full cover of a song than it is to sample two seconds from a song and use it in your recording. There's something really warped going on there. As an aside, McCleod also points out that Big Media has succeeded far less frequently in the courts than in the collective unconscious. They sue quite a bit, but don't win nearly as often as people think. Thus the chilling effect even when the law isn't on their side.

As for the legal status of corporations, many people, including businesspeople, agree with your assertion that we'd all be better off if corporate management were actually held accountable for their individual actions. Individuals are being held to the fire more these days, primarily because Elliot Spitzer is on the warpath, but nailing individuals involved in a collective endeavor is inherently difficult, especially when current law pretty much compels corporations to fight off every lawsuit that comes their way. Even if an individual at the company is a bad seed, the company has to act as if the entire company is being attacked. I don't believe that corporations are inherently evil, but the law certainly prods them to act in an amoral fashion.

Re:Corporations as entities

[Anonymous Coward]

The Disney copyright extensions have led to an absurd situation, particularly given the pace of American society, wherein by the time a copyright expires, the value of the copyrighted material has been radically diminished.

Then why do you care if it is protected under copyright or not? If you have no desire to have it then it being locked in a vault and entirely inaccessible is unimportant.

Mickey Mouse still has value because Disney continues to make it have value by investing time, money, and labor in creating that value. When you go to work, you create value and you expect to be paid for your labor and your time and skill and knowledge. Why shouldn't copyright holders be able to continue to profit from the results of their labor.

Re:Corporations as entities

[Infonaut]

Why shouldn't copyright holders be able to continue to profit from the results of their labor.

The question is whether that right is indefinite in duration. The Constitution is very clear about this point: The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. The benefit to the creators of copyrighted material is meant to be balanced against the right of society at large to benefit from the copyrighted material. You are a part of society before you create and copyright something.

You are not an island, and your ability to create is contingent on being part of a society that encourages entrepreneurial creativity. But in order for that creativity to function, copyrights are limited in duration. The limited duration is intended to keep creators from developing copyrighted material then sitting on it, milking it and squeezing out opportunities for other creative uses. Your right to copyright should not ultimately crowd out the rights of others to create by drawing from the culture around them. But it is incredibly difficult to make any sort of creative work these days without potentially running afoul of someone's copyright. That limits creativity and ultimately makes for a less dynamic economy for creators and a less vibrant culture.

If you want the RIAA to stop doing this

[Rogerborg]

Then stop reporting it. These lawsuits are just cheap publicity.

We may now return to our scheduled wailing and ranting.

An example

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the RIAA is making an example out of these people that their actions are 'unacceptable' to the industry.

In return, i think we should also make an example of the industry, as their actions are unacceptable.

By killing each an every person on the board of directors, their lawyers, and their families, a message will be sent that the 'consumers' are no longer going to accept their actions.

software piracy is akin to cloning...

[Tominva1045]

If a human being were cloned would the clone be afforded civil rights equal to the original human being? (of course)

Lets say I write (create) my software product to a server hard drive and 1 guy purchases and copies (clones) it to his hard drive where the license agreement says he can have his 1 copy.

The guy then violates his license agreement by making it available for cloning to anyone who p2p's it-----

Are the clones entitled equal protection? (of course)

If my normal U.S. Postal mail is placed in may mailbox and someone walks up and steals it he goes to jail.

If I burn the product to CD and someone steals the CD he goes to jail.

If I put the product on a hard drive then anyone who can figure a way to access it is allowed to steal it? (no).

High schools should require courses in ethics and what it means to be responsible and respectful members of society. We have more work to do here it seems and this is why there are software protection schemes out there such as CrypKey and Xheo.

Re:Medical uses are realistic

[__aailob1448]

p0rn sites unleash system infecting bots to delete

What the Fuck?

Probably because

[jav1231]

"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
They don't appear to be very fond of the business model.

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone with a good idea for a change.

Who all is in with us ?

Laws are *not* made for artists.

[ericbg05]

Downloading an mp3, even if it's from a known musician is NOT stealing. I don't give a hoot what you think the law says, or what it actually says for that matter. The law in this regard is supposed to reflect the feelings of the composers and performers... now, take this scenerio...

Heh. If only the world worked that way. The law "reflects the feelings" of whichever player(s) had the most political power at the time when the law was created.

Every other day on /. we hear about *AA, and how stupid they are not to embrace file sharing. My guess is that they know darn well where their money comes from, and they know that file sharing threatens that income stream.

I went to a talk once called "The Heavy Tail", which I paraphrase for (most of) the rest of this post. Basically, the mass market's artistic preferences look like an exponential decay function: on the x-axis are artists, rank-ordered by popularity; on the y-axis is popularity. Closer to the left of the graph are Britney Spears, Shawshank Redemption, and Harry Potter. Farther to the right are more obscure artists, art-forms, and products. There are very few artists on the left-hand side, but they are immensely popular.

Traditional, big sellers of art (like *AA) only target the part of the curve on the left. Why? Because it maximizes sales and minimizes production costs. They have also, as much as possible, manipulated the curve to make sure that their chunk of the x-axis has as many people in it as possible. If you're gonna sell Britney Spears records, make sure that a whole shitload of people hear her name and want to buy her stuff.

It would take a lot of money for them to get at the heavy tail of that exponential function, because the overhead associated with selling all those different flavors of artist would start to outweigh the income gained from said marketing.

Amazon.com (among others), by the way, makes its living by having a business model which allows it to widen its stance on the x-axis, to target part of the heavy tail.

So what happens if some technology pops up that changes the shape of the curve, or allows people to obtain art from your chunk of the curve in a way that doesn't involve paying you? You're a big friggin corporation, not very flexible, and you have a crapload of monetary and political capital at your disposal. Well, you can do two things:

1. Change your business model to accomodate the new technology, or
2. Use some of your power to limit the negative impact of the new technology on your revenue streams.

My guess is that *AA are trying to do as much of both as possible. From (1) we get things like iTunes. From (2) we get things like the DMCA.

So I dunno, it seems to me like *AA are acting totally rationally. Of course iana economist, so I could very easily be wrong.

Re:Laws are *not* made for artists.

[Raindance]

Well said about many topics.

On the heavy tail, I believe the common term for this is "the long tail" and the 80/20 rule (80 percent of the profits come from 20 percent of the product) is often quoted. New technology can increase the amount of product and also influence who gets in that 20 percent.

Why do they always forget to include...

[cove209]

And the winning IP addresses are?

riaa wants money

[bravo369]

I'm beginning to think they just want some free uncontested money from people instead of really trying to get rid of piracy. It's pretty obvious that the lawsuits aren't doing anything so just give it up already.

Re:Perhaps the RIAA is simply better at data analy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but when I actually was on the P2P networks several years ago, that's the only time I ever actually bought music. There was no Napster or iTunes then, so I went out and bought CDs of the artists I discovered while searching for songs. Usually this was because someone was an idiot and mislabled the song with the incorrect artist, and I ended up searching for that artist and finding their "real" pieces.

Most of the music CDs I own are soundtracks (because I hear them and like them before I buy) and the only ones that aren't are from artists I found online. I'm a try before you buy person, and if I haven't tried it, I don't buy it.

Since I stopped P2Ping, I haven't bought any music except the very rare soundtrack. Darn, I guess this former "pirate" is no longer making them money!

There's always the underground

[Anonymous Coward]

I listen to a lot of underground stuff lately, staying away from the major labels because of their greed and lust for power. They are abusive to the artists, and to the customers and they don't deserve my money. There is plenty of good music out there from unsigned artists. With the advent of digital audio workstations, producing a CD on a home PC is not very difficult. I've heard CD's that were made that way sound better than the junk they turn out of the studios now days.
Adam Again is one of the best bands that ever was. They had their own label (Broken Records). Blind Men C... I picked up a CD-R that they were selling at one of their shows for $5 (and they probably made $4 in profit instead of $1). There's just no need to give the majors any more of my money.

FOSEHWWGTFC

[Soporific]

"FOSEHWWGTFC"

Am I the only one who doesn't know what this means?

~S

Re:FOSEHWWGTFC

[Anonymous Coward]

Of those who read the post, where it's defined immediately before it's used, then yes, I'd say you are the only one who doesn't know what it means.

Re:FOSEHWWGTFC

[Soporific]

Jeebus it was in the post above that which was nested...

~S

It's called proof by repeated assertion

[GojiraDeMonstah]

(to STEAL a phrase from Tom DeMarco...)

If you repeat something often enough, consistently, without responding to your opponents using logic or even acknowledging they have a viewpoint, your repeated assertion will catch on. No matter how ridiculous it is.

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is or isn't, that's the magic of repeated assertion.

Now repeat after me: Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Re:It's called proof by repeated assertion

[millennial]

I hate to break my policy of never invoking Godwin's Law, but this was the first thing I thought of when I read your quote:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

-- Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Hitler's Minister of Propaganda

Re:It's called proof by repeated assertion

[Caldair]

Hence... "Software piracy"

Arr.

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Copyright is a good example of the government defending the rights of the individual against the desire of the masses to simply take.

I don't believe you can "take" (or own) an idea. They still have the idea after you've received it, thus it is not taken.

Which of our founding fathers was it who compared gaining knowledge from another to lighting your candle from theirs--in that neither is darkened for it?

Comparing apples to paintings of said apples

[Artemis3]

Hmm, a better analogy would be stealing an apple vs. making paintings of said apple without paying the farmer any fees.

Removing the apple is actually causing a tangible loss, but it is very arguable how much could have earned the farmer, if he decided that anyone doing paintings of one of his apple's should pay a fee.

Perhaps doing it on the first place would prevent anyone from making the paintings so he would have earned nothing, perhaps paying the fee would kill the idea of giving said paintings for free as gifs to your friends.

Another guy will come and say that apple farmers have always been robbed, that they would be rich if they all together demanded fees for each of these paintings being made, such guy would also start a company and start buying some apple farms and hire farmers as he lacks any true farming skill, but comes from a wealthy family...

This is the problem of trying to appropiate the intangible world, its all based in theory and illusion; and can only work as long as enough people in power believe so, and build a set of intangible barriers such as laws treating physical objects the same as intangible.

In fact, to some it seems that copyright infringement causes more damages than killing or raping people. Obviusly causing loses to a sacred american corporation is always worse than ruining an individual life...

Forgive me if i end joining anti copyright movements.

A computer costs a lot more than a CD player

[tepples]

When wax discs first came out, nobody had phonographs. When CDs first came out, nobody had CD players. you can hardly say the same for people who have the Web.

There's a difference. A cheap CD boombox costs $60, and to buy a CD you just have to get on the bus, go to Wal-Mart, buy the CD, and get on the bus back, for a total of $13.86 plus sales tax plus $2 round-trip bus fare, and you only have to pay bus fare if you're actually shopping. A computer, on the other hand, costs an order of magnitude more than a CD player, and an Internet connection capable of digital phonorecord deliveries costs 40 USD per month or more in many geographic areas, and you still have to pay for the Internet even if you're not using it.

No logic flaw

[mosb1000]

Saying that violating copyright is theft is not a logic flaw, it simply depends what definition of theft you are using.

"A comparison between data copying and physical theft is always going to be wrong."

If you say that theft deprives someone of a resource to which they otherwise would've had access, then violating copyright is theft. Violating copyright may deprive the author of a resource (money) to which they otherwise would've had access (had copyright been followed), thereby fulfilling the definition of theft laid out above.

Maybe you should actually learn something about logic before you assume you are proficient at it.

Re:No logic flaw

[CosmeticLobotamy]

If you say that theft deprives someone of a resource to which they otherwise would've had access, then violating copyright is theft.

As are taxes and obsolescence. Let's still just call them taxes and obsolescence, though, 'kay?

Statutory Damages

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, so you'd better not take this as legal advice--you need a lawyer for that.

Anyhow, they come up with something called "statutory damages" which are sums listed in the law that are presumed to be suffered by someone who has their copyright infringed. And yes, other laws provide other statutory damages for other situations. They can also recover both actual damages (which are the kind you seem to be talking about) and special damages (consult a legal dictionary; I'm sure I'd get the definition wrong). I don't recall any other types of damages and I don't think there are any other types (although, for all I know there's some arcane area of law that defines some other damages), but that's how that works, anyhow. Oh, they can also award court costs, too, I guess, as well as punitive damages. Can't believe I forgot those :)

So the bottom line is that for certain acts, there are statutory damages for rather insane amounts of cash (they're not insane for a business, but they are to the average individual... some range in the hundres of thousands of dollars, far beyond the means of most individuals), and they sue for those so that they don't have to go through all the hoops of proving any actual damages (although they will if it makes sense to in any specific case).

What right has he got to that?

[falconwolf]

They clearly did give it away, otherwise how would you have a copy of it? The point is, they want to restrict you from making copies so that people have to go to them to get it.

Did they give it away or did they sale it? As for third parties giving away copies and restrictions, the copyright owner has the right to distribute what is copyrighted any way they want.

Falcon

I'm not saying I agree with the heavey handedness of groups such as the RIAA, in fact I disagree, but musicians have the right to try to make a living with their music.

the purpose of copyrights

[falconwolf]

Wasn't the idea with the original copyright law balance between: having people produce new MMGBAI - and having as many people enjoying MMGBAI? The right to make money (for a while) is only there as a carrot for production of MMGBAI.

The purpose of copyrights and patents is To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;. Money is one way progress is promoted, the possibility of making money encourages people to come up with new things.

Falcon

theft or infringment

[falconwolf]

Maybe you could argue that infringment is breaking cival law whereas stealing is breaking a criminal code. But as wierd as these times are I don't know if that's true anymore, stricktly speaking.

This is how I've heard it put, if someone suffers a theft they are deprived of the use of what was stolen whereas copyright infringement doesn't deprive the owner of the copyright the use of the object that was copyrighed. One you don't have the object anymore whereas in the other you still have it.

Falcon

HOW WAS THAT A TROLL?

[ClioCJS]

Sorry for the "wrights" error. There's just no forgiving that.
--
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. --Friedrich Nietzsche
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Longer than life is effectively forever.

[tepples]

Are you suggesting that somehow the RIAA's lawsuits will kill the creative impulse in everyone, everywhere, forever?

"Until after I'm dead" means just as much as "forever", and the RIAA can likely afford to drag the fight out for longer than many Slashdot readers have left on earth.

Local college radio station is the wrong format

[tepples]

College radio?

The only college radio station in my geographic area is owned by the local Bible college, and it plays Christian music. Are you suggesting that I rewrite my lyrics to get a modicum of airplay?

Nothing is going to change...

[RecycledElectrons]

Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards!

Andy Out!

Re:I love RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

All right, buddy, you've had enough. I'll call you a cab.

Re:hey, RIAA!!

[Danzigism]

aww anony coward.. most likely the person who modded me down.. i'm glad to hear of your recent career opportunity with the RIAA.. you sir, need to suck it twice as hard..