Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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...
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?
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.
Bet this
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.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!
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
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.
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.
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.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
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.
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.
Anybody who does not agree with the RIAA's current actions, should do the same: Vote with your wallet.
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
DUPE!
9 13227&from=rss2 65 7
1. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/30/1
2. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/30/17392
3. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/13182
etc...
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?)
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
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.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
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...
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
You shouldn't believe everything you see on television.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"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.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
it's not about losing money, it's about losing control.
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.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
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?
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.
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.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
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.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
"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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...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...
So, the "will of the people" is to rip-off someone else? And, just who is this "we" of whom you speak?
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.
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.
If you're reading this, stop it.
> 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.
My other car is first.
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.
wow, you are indoctrinated. Exactly how is sharing files a "rip-off" of someone else?
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
Latewire
"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?
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.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
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.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
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.
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.
Damn - submit - preview - oh well.
ahem - "pizza-the-hut" - not jaba-the-gut - sorry for the misquote... =D
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
"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.
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."
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
The primary basis for which all decisions should be made.
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
Test 1 2 3 4
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.)
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.
dont share music. leech it, sure, just dont be person sharing it.
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.
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!
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.
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?
"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?
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.
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.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
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.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
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.
> and the sun came up.
Should that not be SUN still does not opensource Java?
The GPL does not discourage sharing. The media industry does. There's a difference.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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!
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!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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.
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Who was attacking the GPL? I was attacking you because you are a hypocrite.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
"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.
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.
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.
Why? Is copyright infrigement somehow less illegal?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
By that logic you might as well call it murder.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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)
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
I had my CDs stolen too.
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
"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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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.
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
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.
More on those "naked streets":
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
what the fuck was the point ?, had very little to do with the topic at hand. CH
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.
Who modded up this flamebait? Other than "start voting with your dollars," that post just an attempt to provoke angry responses.
How ya like dat?
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.
Nah. Heck, the way they've been going, I bet half the people on the list are from New Orleans.
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.
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.
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?
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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?
Windows Tweaks
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.
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.
No, because that IS theft.
If I share free music I legally am alloowed to share, such things will be most unlikely to happen, troll.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Don't blame me for your inadequate understanding.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
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.
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
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...
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
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.
Sorry if this has already been posted, but a very interesting court summary before she got the lawyer:2 9/runaround-suits
http://www.godwinslaw.org/weblog/archive/2005/08/
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
Rickard Nickson:
"Sharing music is not stealing!"
"I repeat, Sharing music is not stealing!"
sex is better than war!
I've already identified your need to include useless commentary to bolster your self-esteem but, really, must you make it so obvious?
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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?
"It takes a very long time to count to 2 in binary." ~'Fourlegged'
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
I was pointing out that you were making bullshit assumptions that have been shown to be incorrect.
.99 on iTunes.
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
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
boky
"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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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!
How we know is more important than what we know.
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!
"... I'd rather have this bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy!" -- T. Bone Stankus
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.
;) 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.
:-)
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.
Besides, I left my tinfoil hat in my car... I can't go into that line of conspiracy thinking without it.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
AllofMP3 lets you preview the entire song at 128kbps.. just one of the many reasons I prefer it over iTunes.
smattawichu
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
How can it not be stealing ? The same way it is not murder. Get it asshole?
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.
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.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
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.
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...
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.
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.
With their own money, yes. Within a jurisdiction which can support them, yes. In Federal Court? Absolutely not. At taxpayer expense? Absolutely not.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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
Quack, quack.
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
23% of 2000 people, so what? don't refer to surveys, they are flawed.
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).
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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!
I was a stranger for the thing, i wasn't facing the crowd, ive been riding on empty with my head in the clouds
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.
RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
Please, oh Please, make me suffer a physical loss of Monday! That would be sweet!
I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
- 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.
<before>now</before>
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
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.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
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?
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?
Advanced users are users too!
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?
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
-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)
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 ;)
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
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.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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
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.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
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.
"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.
Now copyright theft would be a very interesting crime. "help me officer, someone stole my copyright and is now suing me for copyright infringement!"
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.
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?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
..... 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.
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
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.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
That's the whole point of this thread. Please don't jump into the middle of a conversation, we've already covered this ground.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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).
sigs are hazardous to your health
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.
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.
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.
It's been a long time.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
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.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
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.
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?
Kythe
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.
/. I'm sort of preaching to the choir.
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
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.
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.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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?
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.
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?
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.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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
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.
"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?
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.
Kythe
Well, if a lot of them seem to - name ten of them.
Ah, OK, it was just a blind assertion after all!
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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.
Is there such a thing?
...if not, why not?
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.
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?
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/
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Then stop reporting it. These lawsuits are just cheap publicity.
We may now return to our scheduled wailing and ranting.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
Cogito Ergo Sum
p0rn sites unleash system infecting bots to delete
What the Fuck?
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.
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).
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.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"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.
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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:
- Change your business model to accomodate the new technology, or
- 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.
And the winning IP addresses are?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The Chair Corp. comic(*00-12)
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.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
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.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
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.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
"FOSEHWWGTFC"
Am I the only one who doesn't know what this means?
~S
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.
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.
"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?
Vote for Pedro
(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.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
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.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
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.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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.
ooh, a flame from an anonymous troll. It's easy to tell an idiot, because you all mistake your opinions for fact.
If iTunes and CDs are any indication, it isn't the artist who determines how his work will be distributed. Nobody's against artists.
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.
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.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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.
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.
Should there be a Law?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Nope. You're lowering the value of someone's product by giving away copies for free.
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
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
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.
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.
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 until we shoot the bastards!
Andy Out!
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.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
In the popular mind,...
Oh well, I guess I have an unpopular mind.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
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)
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Ahem, communist is not very PC you know ... the preferred term is terrorist.
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?
b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
MadDwarf
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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...
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
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.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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
Well, I specifically said the record companies, not the RIAA.
:p.
Yeah, I was too lazy to type out "record companies"
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
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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
"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.