Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says P2P Encourages Illegal Downloads
stlhawkeye writes "The RIAA is at it again, attacking inconvenient technology because it can be abused. They have sent another round of letters to P2P services, asking them to stop "encouraging users" to illegally distribute copyrighted material. eDonkey, LimeWire, and Kazaa are all on the RIAA's hit list, along with 2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare. One wonders how they intend to attack BitTorrent, which can be and is used in legitimate mass distribution efforts of legal material, such as World of Warcraft patches. Are FTP and /usr/sbin/scp next?"
http://www.limewire.com/english/content/answerno.s html
How can the RIAA make such claims? Limewire will NOT let you buy their product if you have malicious intent.
It has something to do with the sky being blue.
People still use WinMX?
Apache can be used to serve illegal downloads. Film at 11!
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Is it considered a dupe when you post the same idea that has been post 1000 other times on here? The RIAA hates p2p. The don't like technology and believes it is a threat. We get it! Post informative things, not designed bashfests.
It's computers that encourage illegal download. Ban them!
Now that the Supreme Court has set "active inducement" as the standard for liability, the RIAA is trying to establish a paper trail to use in subsequent trials against these services.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
It's /usr/bin/scp, you insensitive clod!
(at least on my Gentoo box)
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
Counting down the days until agents come and take the . a v and i keys off my keyboard
It's not the availibility of P2P that makes me download music. It's the fact that I CANNOT find good music in ANY store around here.
MAKE Music not SHIT
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
Obviously we must make TCP/IP illegal immediately!
[Insert pithy quote here]
Dear RIAA, I wish to admit that I have strayed from the straight and narrow and am using a device which may be used to circumvent copyright. I just discovered that using my keyboard I can type in copyrighted books and other material without hindrance. Please advise me whether I should burn my keyboard or sever my fingers to be compliant to your worldview.
Soon enough, the RIAA will start suing bands for making music that entices people to download it illegally.
How could you respond to something like that? Politically the cards are stacked against you with such a baiting statement, so no matter what response these companies are on the defensive.
Unlike most trolls, ignoring them might land you with a lawsuit.
At best, disgusting. At worst, corporate terrorism.
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
The article points out:
1. "Other companies in the peer-to-peer file-swapping market include i2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare."
2. "BearShare, WinMX and LimeWire were identified in a Wall Street Journal story as recipients of the letters."
How does this equate to threatening BitTorrent, exactly? They're threatening companies with similar models to that of Grokster. Get a grip.
Please put us on your do not call list. Thank you.
FFS, the RIAA is like a big crying baby. Shut up and go away already.
Bread manufacturers[1] say knifes encourage murder rampages. Film at eleven.
[1] We called them bakeries back in the day...
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
Georeg Bush says "War in Iraq is Suceeding".
Pope says "Abortion is Wrong".
Bill Gates says "Upgrade Now!"
Steve Jobs says new product is "Available Immediately".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Dear RIAA, plzstfuagdomzomgbbqthx
The RIAA says that P2P encourages illegal downloads? Holy crap! When did this happen?
How is this new? In related news, SCO is suddenly saying that the Linux kernel contains stolen code from Unix!
... men I am so tired of this bs.
Wait a second here....you're telling me that....all those movies and songs I've downloaded through Bit-Torrent and mIRC...are illegal? What's up with that?
Like, you know, driving to your house and personally kidnapping one of your children to be donated to the "music industry", defined as "No one who actually makes music, because people who make music are idiots"
Never confuse volume with power.
Lets see, I think we need to get rid of IRC, since it was really the first P2P medium. Oh yes, how about Hotline, which nobody ever uses anymore! If you block it, we will find away around it! HAHAHAHAHA
That is how I get my linux distribution cds. Only the md5sums do I directly download from the website. This is much nicer for their bandwith.
RIAA Says P2P Encourages Illegal Downloads... kinda in the same way that actually producing the music encourages people to share it...
The gates in my computer are AND, OR and NOT; they are not Bill.
We are also lobbying congress to allow open season on all penguins because they promote Linux which is "Open Sores" software and that promotes P2P which promote THEFT! Fello Americans! Stop your crimes against humanity! STOP THE HURTING!
Regards,
Your RIAA
Tons of free, unencumbered music, movie, and software is only a few mouse clicks away. That coupled with a relatively small threat of being caught and sued or whatever is very tempting to anyone. I don't necessarily think you SHOULD download this stuff; I'm just saying that the infrastructure more-or-less encourages it. Of course, there is plenty of Free stuff available, as well. Not nearly as much as the illegitimate files, but it does have a presence. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that P2P encourages ALL downloading, but the majority of P2P downloads seems to be of the illegal type.
It seems that P2P hosts/users are the RIAA's scapegoat for poor record sales and missed objectives. Sadly enough, if the the RIAA's goal is to anger the public in such a fashion that they refuse to purchase CD media they are only creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I, for one, have refused to purchase any new music CDs based on the RIAA's new smash-and-grab mentality.
The RIAA seems to operate much like a crime family, extorting P2P users for "fines" and crushing individuals in court (even if the case is thrown out, there are still legal fees).
I say to hell with the RIAA, I'll use ShoutCast or listen to the radio.
I wish slashdot would stop posting this crap.
Too bad slashcode won't let you post that to *
Trolling is a art,
Ok, last time I installed Limewire it asked me to agree to not distribute illegal material or I couldn't use it. I've used BitTorrent to download Linux Distros. Yes that's plural, I've used it to download 5 different distros to date. I finally settled on Fedora FC4 for my laptop and it's running just fine. I think that the RIAA needs to realize where the problem is. It's not the software creators or distributors that are to blame but the end users. I guess it's harder to nab end users as we log on sometimes for hours or just for a few minutes. I'm fed up with the RIAA making noise about this stuff. They had success with Napster because it was keeping a list of all the illegal music and it's location on local servers. Ahh! It's just dumb. The lawyers time and all time spent persuing dead ends like attacking software creators for users illegal action ends up coming out and affecting me in the CD prices. I remember not too long ago that new relase CD's were anywhere from 12.99 - 19.99. The 19.99 were usually double disc sets! Music artists themselves my be at part to blame... "I just bought a yacth! I have to make more per cd"... But I think it's mostly the fat cats behind the desks spending money and resources on things that are not only wasting time but end up costing us more money in the long road to buy music. No wonder there are so many music and movie pirates!
Boy, that all came out in one fail swoop so I'm not even going to separate it into paragraphs. Maybe these software compaines should start messing with the RIAA and counter sue for costs the time and effort spent on trial expenses before the damn thing happens. Maybe that would slow them down if they had to pay a few dollars out themselves win or lose. Ahhh, it's late on Friday afternoon and the weekend is here so I decided to spill my frustrations onto this page. take it for what it's worth.Generation Trance: What generation are you?
They're sending letters to "BitTorrent"? There isn't a central hub or company that houses torrents, so who exactly is RIAA sending letters to? Bram Cohen? It's not like he can do much about how widespread BT use is now. The most he could do at this point is tell people not to pirate software... yeah, that'll definitely work REAL well. But that's besides the point; as far as I know, Bram Cohen has never encouraged the use of BT for illegal activities.
alot of these services advertise themselves as allowing you to pirate stuff.
almost none of them discourage it.
i find it hilarious when people attempt to pretend that p2p is mainly legit downloads
Wasn't this posted a couple of months ago?
It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
This is just a transition period between old technology and new. I'm comparing what happened during the initial years of home video recording and audio cassette recorders - at first content publishers were bent out of shape then they realized that they can make even MORE money with the new technology. It'll work out eventually. Also, these times will be used as yet another example for the next time some organization like the RIAA gets bent out of shape over some new technology that allows consumers to copy a copyrighted product.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
Who in the world puts scp into /usr/sbin, anyway ?
"RIAA Says P2P Encourages Illegal Downloads"
Nice summary. Next story? "Fraternal Order of Police say drugs and crime are related!"
Duh.
Next.
What about Vista? Isn't there suppose to be some kind of P2P package built into the OS?
It's picked up and cast down into the bowels of /usr/bin instead!
Noooo!
As a practial matter, as long as the internet exists, P2P networks will exist. Get used to it folks.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Driving SUVs encourages collisions
The context for this latest RIAA PR crusade is the Supreme Court "Grokster" decision this past Spring. The Court found that, of the P2P SW publishers which were sued, the ones which could be liable for illegal abuse of their SW by users were those publishers which "encouraged" the abuse. The Court found that Kazaa was liable, because its internal memos showed that they were expecting such abuse, and it designed external promotions consistent with that detected strategy. The other publishers, including Grokster, were not found liable, lacking that evidence of promotion.
Whether the Court was correct in finding such encouragement by Kazaa is now merely post-game quibbling. So also are arguments about whether a person can be held liable for another person jumping off a bridge just because the person told them to. The Court has ruled. So the RIAA is now portraying any P2P operator as encouraging or promoting abuse, because that's the basis for attacking them under what will now be known as the "Grokster doctrine". Any publisher, developer, designer, or user of P2P SW (or anyone else associated with it) must now invest in producing evidence that they do not promote illegal abuse. How to produce evidence of something not happening is extremely expensive and ultimately impossible.
So, as usual, only the lawyers have won, and the RIAA can do whatever it wants under these deeply flawed legal doctrines. People who just want to use the content we own, fairly, have to look elsewhere for some way to protect our rights.
--
make install -not war
the RIAA's product's low quality and overinflated prices also encourage illegal downloads.
Actually, P2P doesn't really *encourage* illegal downloads. It only *facilitates* them. Which is very different. Of course, the possibility of committing an illegal act remains only a possibility, unless the motivation is strong enough to overcome the difficulties and risks. And the motivation for illegal downloads is the RIAA's fault only.
How did the RIAA get so damn powerful anyway?
I think the RIAA should send a warning letter to all the music industry record makers putting them on notice that their high prices encourage illegal downloading of music. And that unless the music makers stop ripping off their customers they will potentially be sued by the RIAA. The P2P networks could help out by providing the stats on the most popular downloaded music, thus identifying record labels which most overcharge causing the downloading.
So does HTTP.
Dear skynare, roflmfma!
Hmm... That's a wierd place for scp...
/usr/bin/scp
$ which scp
Is it really "RIAA Says P2P Encourages Illegal Downloads"??? What it seems to me is that the RIAA is actually encouraging more pirating by making it such a big deal!
Take for instance a study that I read not too long ago on suicide. (I've not been able to find a link and do apologize, but it was only a few months ago) It basically came down the the psychology of what drives people to suicide. It stated something to the fact that once there was a suicide by someone that was broadcast on the news, radio, or in papers that there were statistically more suicides following the dissemination of the news. The concluded after much research etc that it was the sheep mentality, where someone may be feeling really bad, depressed, or whatever and not thought of suicide until they heard about jon or jane doe last week. They decide to follow suit and committ suicide. It was an interesting article that made very good points, and again I apoloigize for not being able to locate it.
My point is that maybe the P2P networks wouldn't be such a rampant pirates playground if they would let it die quietly. Maybe take care of the largest offenders, but quit wasting so much time and effort in harrassing software creators.
Rant over.
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
Yes P2P apps can be used for illegal downloads.. in other news, cars can be used to rob banks, phones can be used to call in bomb threats and golf clubs can be used to assault people.
Are we seeing a point here yet? Or should we start charging Ford, and AT&T for aiding and abetting?
They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist; They came for the Socialists, and I didn'
but i think i should bring this to people's attention:
o _give_w.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/15/wipo_wants_t
glasses encourage DUIs as well, so cars and glass containers should be abolished.
Also eyes encourage spying and voyeurism (let's not go there)...ears encourage eavesdropping so they should be cut. Brains encourage thinking, thinking evil thoughts that it, so they should be Ritalined(TM).
From now on, all civilians need to file an application with the *AA's to explain in a proper and documented manner what parts of their body they need to keep and why. Same applies for all house appliances, cars, goods, food and all products that can have potential harmful uses, such as but not limited to, evil actions, evil thoughts, evil in general.
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
It should be worong for users to advertise that P2P can be used for trading copyrighted materials when they usually would not be allowed to. HOWEVER this does not mean that the programs are doing anything wrong!
Simply sugesting thet BitTorrent is bad because it is P2P is like the RIAA sending a letter to the government saying to "ban the internet!"
Wonder what the public key field is for?
I see people struggling to understand why the RIAA is so evil, etc.
No... it's all very simple. The RIAA has a chance of succeeding in getting the law on its side, by exploiting the similarity of copying copyrighted music to stealing in order to make more cash. Cash is the keyword. How they get the cash is just the "technique". They can do it by selling music. They can also supplement it with litigation. If they did not see a good chance in generating money from litigation, they wouldn't touch p2p.
That said, note that it is not *obvious* that copying copyrighted materials is "stealing". After all, that is very different from actually stealing your neighbour's chicken, after which not only do you have your neighbour's chicken, your neighbour also lacks his chicken on top of that. If you steal Briney Spears' song, she still has her original copy (don't know why she'd need that crap, though, but that's another topic).
However, the RIAA doesn't want us to think about the details. Stealing is stealing. Let's proceed.
Because you shouldn't underestimate the bandwidth of a giant SUV packed to the gills with warez speeding down the national interstate system . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
To an extent, the RIAA makes a point (well, except in the case of BitTorrent). All of the others are used for piracy as their primary purpose. Go to Limewire's site and you see how it will automaticly add songs to iTunes for you.
BitTorrent is different. Of course, BitTorrent is a lot less easy to use for piracy. It can't just find files. There has to be a torrent. Yeah, there are torrent search engines, but it isn't the same level of ease.
That's the difference. The level of ease. CD burners allow people to share music, but it is a lot harder than Limewire et al. Xerox machines can copy books, but it takes time, effort and resources. LimeWire et al make it trivial to infringe on copyright and have slim legitimate uses. That's what the Supreme Court saw.
Now, Limewire could be used for legit uses - like sharing songs that artists allow to be shared. But there are better mechanisms for that - like FTP and BitTorrent. Why hide on Limewire when you can put a torrent link on your website? Only if you're doing something illegal and don't want to be found.
The RIAA is being terrible lately, but the opposite is just as bad. Why can't we defend technologies like BitTorrent which are less easy to use for illegal use and easier to use for legitimate uses and have the oppertunity to revolutionize distribution?
Can anyone respond with a real-world legitimate use for Limewire et al that wouldn't be better served by BitTorrent? Or is this just fear that if the RIAA gets its way with services we all acknowledge aren't used legitimately, they'll go after the Xerox machines, CD-burners and BitTorrents of the world (and succeed)?
People seriously need to learn how to differentiate.
/wishes people would get a clue.
HTTP, and FTP also facilitate piracy. Are they evil? Nope. P2P is no different.
It's the service that indexes and provides easy access to illegal material (software, music, child pornography) that is at fault.
Don't blame the protocol for what people do with it. There are a ton of good uses for the technology.
You can blame guns for violence... or you can blame their owners. Same with TNT. You know people's lives have been ended by radiation right? Well, lives have been saved by it too... it's all about how it's used.
... having a car encourages drunk driving... ...or having hands encourages strangling idiots.
WoW is a perfect case-in-point example of how beautifully P2P can operate.
The "I download Linux distros" argument was always a bit shaky, but Blizzard is a commercial company using a new technology and proving it's effectiveness each and every patch (every 5-6 weeks or so).
There was a fantastic commentary on the RIAA made by Scott Bradner of Network World about how media organizations (RIAA, MPAA) have always fought new technology to the bitter end, only to find out from hindsight that it actually was beneficial. On the contrary, when they try to usurp the technology, they shoot themselves in the foot.
Where would movies at home (i.e. DVD) be today without the permiation of VCRs and video casettes? I wonder if anyone at the MPAA ever goes "Whoops... Glad we never won that argument!"
Probably not.
"If you steal Briney Spears' song, she still has her original copy"
Then it certainly is not stealing, is it, if she still has everything she had before someone "stole" from her?
Breaking news: knives encourage murder
Or: Alcohol encourages driving too fast
Or: Money encourage thieves
But seriously: What level is this at? Children in kindergarten, taking away their toys from each other?
Hey this goes the other way around too:
Producing music (for high prices) encourages people to try to listen to it cheaper than buying.
I'm simply boycotting the RIAA.
a) Produce less obvious dirt
b) Pay good artists a fair share
c) Don't "create" stars, FIND THEM!
These points will make any label successful, since it is all about the fans.
you can not use the fact that the design allows infringement to require a redesign.
In other words.. they must take ACTIVE MEASURES to "induce", and those active measures must be obvious and show ACTIVE INTENT.. not some tact "don't download wink wink" intent..
so long as you don't say in your ads (post grokster, as per the ex post facto clause of our constitution) please download copyrighted music now, they have no right to demand "filtering" or whatever flavor of the month nonsenses they want developed but don't want to pay for.
Of course, the USSC left this broad open swathlike space for a judge to be completely subjective.. thank you "lost liberty hotel" souter.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Maybe they should start at the source and send letters to musicians telling them to stop creating music that people want. I think that would make just as much sense.
i just put in
A significant portion of 'illegal' trading goes on over IRC as well. Now we need to ban all the IRC servers?
There are more methods of nimble distribution than there are lawyers to close them down.
"We demand that you immediately cease-and-desist from enabling and inducing the infringement of RIAA member sound recordings."
When did supporting/enabling downloads to any data == encouraging illegal downloads?
Funny, when DRM techs seem to encourage piracy more than anything else.
Observe their restrictions and even RIAA should understand why.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
...for their poor sales performance...
I am very anti-copyright infringment and I find some of the pro-infrigment attitude of some here on Slashdot is quite disturbing. That said, you cannot blame a P2P network for this, unless said network is actively encouraging the illegal sharing of material.
The RIAA is making a very broad statement that just doesn't jive with reality. Sadly, those is power are often too stupid to know better.
American Idol stars suck. I mean, there is that new chick who's doing M&M ads? WTF?
My big problem with new releases is the price. How can they keep charging $15+ a CD when I can buy 100 CDs in bulk for that much (or less!). I strictly buy my CDs used or via BMG. But BMG charges way too much for shipping. It's insane!
I can see how someone would just download it and not have to deal with it. I mean, who really cares about the latest Kayne West or Jay Z releases? They all sound like crap to me.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
The failure of RIAA members to adapt their offerings to the market encourages illegal downloads. People buy things when they get reasonable terms. Making fair use harder by using "copy-protected" retail CDs qualifies as not reasonable by a lot of people.
We should think about that too...
Really, when a specific implimentation of a technology is being used overwelmingly for illegal activity, we, as a society, have a responsibility to look into the causes, and try to resolve the issue.
Have you considered the possibility that the law here is false?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
The RIAA is sending out these letter principally for the press it generates. Specifically, they want to create several impressions: that they are the predominant holders of copyrighted material and thus uniquely affected by exchange of same, that the efficiency of P2P methods poses a specific threat to copyright enforcement, and that the mere presence of a something constitutes inducement to use it for a particular purpose.
Well, the vast majority of copyrights (in the US) are held by individuals, not cpmpanies and especially not the RIAA. This is true if, for no other reason, than simply commiting anything marginally creative to any sort of physical medium or "performing something" generates a "work" which is automatically copyright by the author(s) on inception. Write a letter to grandma, it's copyright.
P2P methods are not really any more efficient than other methods save for the optimization of bandwidth. Other methods are amenable to indexers, crawlers, and mass distribution. P2P is not unique.
I'd also argue that mere availability of a technology does not constitute inducement to use it for a particular purpose. They sell hammers, but relatively few people use them to bash people's heads in. Likewise, miniskirts and prostitution. One might argue that publishing indices of files is inducement, but it's equally arguable that it's transparency so that copyright holders not yet hip with the times can see what's going on...
But why do people download stuff from P2P? It's cheaper, it's conveninent, they want to experiment sampling things that are unknown to them without having to pay for what theywill probably dislike and throw away, and because the amount of choice found in retail channels is rapidly declining. For the past few years, the number of new releases has dropped what, 10% per year? Back catalogs are less and less available...
Let's face it, anorexic Disney Channel graduates and the MTV flash-in-the-pan hip-hop hapless crew not withstanding, if you REALLY like music, the music industry simply doesn't publish it anymore.
They're lashing out at a public that's increasingly seeing them as irrelelvent. For those brought up with the Internet, the notion that music and video aren't stored in central databases, cross-indexed and even searchable with a few notes from the chorus, is quaint indeed. Perhaps ORACLE will buy them -- they don't know any more about music than CRM, it'll fit their business just fine.
For me, it never even crossed my mind to actually download something illegally. But then Kazaa started popping up error messages left and right encouraging me to download something illegal instead. For instance, I would be downloading public domain pdf files on world peace and energy conservation, and a message box would come pop up saying something like "Paying is for suckers!", or "RIAA don't care about YOU!".
I just ignored it at first, but then it started coming in the form of threats. Such as "We are now logging your personal information. And if you continue defying my requests we will kidnap your family and tie your dog to the rail road tracks with a collar made of dynamite." I even tried other file sharing programs, but they all did the same. It was just threat after threat after threat. Eventually, I had to change my identity and move to another state. Since then, i've had nightmares constantly, and am too afraid to use my computer.
I, for one, am excited that someone is finally standing up to these criminals. The RIAA is a great organization, one that really cares about my privacy and safety. And truely I hope they finally put an end to this conspiracy, once and for all. Because our precious freedom is at stake here.
I hear that firearms and automobiles are abused too; even employed in the commission of much more serious crimes than copyright infringement. But I don't hear the RIAA calling for bans on them.
Of course, firearm and automobile manufactrers don't encourage people to shoot innocent bystanders or drive drunk, either. In fact, they fall all overthemselves to lecture people about the appropriate use of their products.
And in this case, the RIAA is only sending letters to those entities that, like Grokster, are still doing the old nudge-nudge-wink-wink about spreading around copyrighted material, or even actively promoting their protocols/clients as the means by which to do such. They're not talking about "banning" P2P - they're talking about the people who produce and promote tools expressly with pirating in mind. That's not everyone in the P2P world, but it is some of them, and they got the letters. You'd think, seeing what happened to Grokster when they were being jackasses about it, there wouldn't be anyone producing such tools without trying, at least on the face of it, to discourage stupid behavior.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
RIAA: "We understand that your organization: DARPA is responsible for TCP/IP - software used for copyright infringement. We demand you respond to our staff attorney immediately."
DARPA: "Sure thing, what's your longitude, latitude, and elevation?"
[Insert pithy quote here]
"The RIAA is at it again, attacking inconvenient technology because it can be abused."
....though on second thought, here, just take it... my hands are pretty cold already.
You can have my Microsoft Windows(tm) when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands!
Not to be a word nazi (usually I'm not), but gee whiz, get some (new?) editors around here already...
they can be abused too!
1- P2P is often used to spread legal music, software, and files. Think of how many Indie bands have files out there and are trying to make a name for themselves. Think of how many home-made car (aka: rice) videos are on there for us to see. Think of how many interviews are on P2P networks. think of how much freeware and shareware is available on these same networks. So how can you say they have 'intent'. Lets say there are 10 legal files for every illegal file- that's still pretty good. Problem is the illegal files get downloaded 10x as much, but then you still have a 50-50 network.
2- This is obviously the wrong approach. If person X doesn't get their movie from P2P, they'll join a group and get it from some private FTP site. They'll find it on the Web. They'll spread it out through direct file transfers. They'll pass it around class on CDs and DVD-Rs. They'll get it around. Hell they'll even print it off frame-by-frame and make a damn-flip-book for all I care.
The RIAA again needs to Embrace the technology. Provide an alternative. Clearly consumers (us) are saying "well it's either (a) not worth X dollars for this movie or CD, or (b) something is preventing me from getting it (DRM, whining babies at the theatre, poor quality, etc).
So solve the issue. Provide a legal download service that assures the quality and won't have a cam release on an angle and many will flock. Clearly there is a need or want here that people are fulfilling. There is something they are not meeting in traditional means. Feed that need/want and you can actually make some coin off of it.
As always though, they'll figure 5-8 people watch a movie at a time and want to charge you $50-$80 for a single movie though... which isn't quite right, in the same way that you should be saving the distribution and duplication costs in music downloads (but usually don't).
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
The poster states that "eDonkey, LimeWire, and Kazaa are all on the RIAA's hit list, along with 2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare." If the poster RTFA, he would have learned that 2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers were NOT sent the letter. BearShare, WinMX and LimeWire were identified in a Wall Street Journal story as recipients of the letters.
All the sex shops here have racks and racks of exotic toys, all labeled "for novelty purposes only," because in Atlanta it's illegal to sell a dildo.
And all the head shops all sell "water pipes."
In either place, if you start asking questions about getting high or getting off, you get kicked out.
Interestingly enough, you can walk right into a gun shop and say "I need a gun to kill my husband with" and they'll still sell it to you (maybe). Okay, you have to go outside the city limits for that. I love that you have to go outside the city limits to buy a dildo or a gun, and I've seen more than one bumper sticker that says "when dildos are outlawed, only outlaws will have dildos."
Maybe if they called a gun a "hole punch" the way they call a bong a "water pipe" we could skirt this whole issue. I mean, we call it "the Internet" instead of "all the music and porno in the world for free," right?
This is not my sandwich.
The biggest cause of copyright violations in the creation of copyrighted material.
Violation of copyright pre-dates the existence of P2P software. In fact, violation of copyright can be traced back through history since the term copyright was first found. Therefore, it seems to me tnat creating copyright material is the leading cause of people being "encouraged" to copy it. If copyright was eliminated then 100% of copyright violations would end over-night.
Along the same line of thinking as the RIAA, I declair that the existence of radio stations "encourage" payola and the on-going cases of payola should be enough proof that radio stations must be elminated.
I further declair that the existence of contracts between artists and distributors "encourages" contract violations. The on-going cases being filed by artists that are ripped off by the same companies the RIAA represent should be enough proof the contracts must be elminated.
I further declair that the limited number of mega-distributors "encourages" price fixing. The fact that these distributors have recently been found guilty of price fixing should be enough to show that all mega-distributors should be broken up by goverment to elminate this problem.
Sure, we can talk about how RIAA's attack on P2P could also apply to netcat, uucp, rsync, etc. But wouldn't be more fun to talk about how RIAA's logic of attacking P2P backfires on the companies that the RIAA claims to represent?
How about this for flawed logic... for a long time the RIAA has feeding us that ever song downloaded is a "lost sale." Now a study done in the UK shows that these downloads generate *FIVE TIMES* the amount of profit over those that don't download. Why doesn't the RIAA explain how a "lost sale" can produce five times the revenue?
Personally, I don't download simply because I don't want to be encouraged to pay five times what I already pay on music.
Bottom line... I don't need RIAA's music in record, LP, 8-track, tape, CD, Super Audio-CD, mini-disc, DVD-audio or any other format of the day you wish to spin your crack out on. I spend my days at a computer in a building where radio reception is the pits. The next product I buy will likely be based on information I get off the Internet. It might be a video game, a movie, a USB camera or a new hard drive. But it sure as hell won't be music. The reason is that for everything that I buy, I can find review or trailers that give an overall impression of the product. But with music, I am supplied the first 30-seconds which tells me nothing about the full overall feel of the song. I also find music reviews to only reflect the views of the reviewer and not my own. So, when my money makes it into a cash register, it isn't because I bought a piece of music. And as advocates on behalf of the music industry, the RIAA should be fired.
I own a kitchen knife. I use it for chore's around the house. Cooking, opening box's, shaving. That's legal.
Stab you in the back with it. That's illegal.
I guess I don't understand. I thought the responsibility was with the person.
RIAA: Fix your product or go away!!
No IP.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I've not bought a song or a CD in a year. I almost caved on a Bob Dylan live track CD, but I held fast. The recording industry is not getting a dime from me. Practitioners of such heavy handed legal thuggery deserve death far more than they deserve respect.
This is my sig.
Piracy will never be stopped. The only way to overcome it is by making piracy less appealing. (No, not by scare tactics).
Some reasons piracy is so appealing is because it's:
1) Free
2) Convenient
3) Open
So obviously the way to thwart piracy is to:
1) Lower prices to a more reasonable amount.
If these companies are claiming such huge losses from the amount of piracy then they should find a price point that increases sales but still brings them above the level of loss that P2P is causing. Don't try to compete with a free price but do make the margin a little bit smaller.
2) Increase availability.
A lot of people just want a movie/album as soon as possible. Downloading stuff online is merely a way to accomplish this. Especially if it's something that gets leaked before it's released. I've seen people complain about a pre-order/retailer taking longer to deliver than it would have been to download it. That is pretty frustrating when you can download something for free before you can legitimately own it. Give people the option to purchase and download movies/music online at the exact same time or earlier.
3) Increase openness (yes it's a word).
The point of DRM is to stop legally purchased movies/music from becoming the source of piracy. But when has that ever been a problem? Sure it might be if legally downloading movies ever takes off. But piracy is going to happen. It's better to plan your business model around that fact instead of trying to fight it. Pirates are willing to bring cameras into movies theaters and steal silvers from DVD plants. Pirate groups are not lazy. Don't try to fight these people on their own turf.
I know some people that still download NOCD cracks and even full pirated versions of games they legally own, just because they don't want to worry about lost discs and sacrificing their CD-ROM every time they want to play a game. That strikes me as tragic, when the paying customers get worse treatment than the "criminals". So please stop ruining things for the rest of us just because of a few people.
Also this just in, drowning victims get wet.
A penis encourages rape
A knife encourages stabbings
A car encourages vehicular manslaughter
Tall buildings encourage defenestrations
Deep bodies of water encourage death by drowning (assisted with concrete galoshes)
Electricity encourages electrocution
Computers encourage computer crime
Fingers encourage theft
An anus encourages public defacation
Slashdot encourages dupes? (evilgrin)
Eyes encourage staring like a pervert.
Cameras encourage upskirting
I wish these idiot trade groups would just STOP with the spurious connections.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Beer encourages drunk driving! We should have a prohibition on alcohol! Oh. Wait.
The article has the name correct. It's i2hub as in Internet2.
Meanwhile, gun manufacturers have reported receiving mail requesting them to stop encouraging people to murder others.
For every legal P2P download there are a gazillion illegal downloads. This isn't an attack on the technology, which anyone can see, but on the people who are using it. It's a fine protocol, whether it be Bittorrent or some other system, but it's just not being used for the way in which it's supporters claim it's being used for. Clicking on any random torrent site and spending some time searching through the categories I had a lot of difficulty finding any legal torrents. There was some abandonware whose legality I'm unsure and I only found legal patches after explicitly searching for it, but then all of those I saw were available at the games companies own website. I know all forms of P2P have their legitimate uses but it's rarely being used for it. The VAST majority of what I see are Movies, Apps, Games, TV shows and Music and increasingly - ebooks. Now, with the exception of TV shows for foreign viewers I can see no real justification in downloading these. The one I hear a lot is "it's a crap program\movie\song why should I pay for it". Well, if it's a crap program\movie\song why are you even bothering with it? Plus, the various industries have provided plenty of oppurtunity to freely and legally judge if something is worth buying Movies have a gazillion trailers, previews, reviews. Plus everyone knows someone either in RL or online who's seen a movie and can tell them if it's worth watching or not. Games in most cases have demos Apps in many cases have demos or trials, which can show even a moron what it's capability have. Music has free online samples, and a gazillion radio stations worldwide in which to listen to tracks. There are no justifications in this day and age for illegal downloads other than "wanting something for nothing". Justifying it any other way is pointless. Now since, most P2P is used for exactly that purpose, then why are we geeks on /. kicking up a fuss when the governing bodies do what anyone in their position would do and make measures to protect their own.
The RIAA, MPAA, etc are NOT attacking anyone's rights or attacking the technology used... so this has nothing to do with anyone's "right's online", because no-one has the right to break the law anyway. So, they're attacking the people who are breaking it.
If we don't want the RIAA to attack P2P then we, ourselves as a group need to make sure that nobody is abusing the wonderful technology.
Of course, if we could achieve that P2P use would drop to practically nothing. I certainly don't find it very efficient for getting Linux distros, patches, drivers etc. What a pain in the ass that would be, when you can just use the numerous ftp\http servers!
Are FTP and /usr/sbin/scp next?
I dislike the RIAA as much as the next guy. But can we stop being so ridiculous?
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
I am also surprised that nobody pays more attention to this. There's an elephant in the room, and nobody wants to believe it exists. Musicians are just as much a part of the problem as the RIAA. Why? Because musicians buy into the notion that they should sign with a label, have the label pay for everything, and receive whatever the label feels fit to give them in return.
Essentially everyone (musicians, labels, consumers) has bought into the notion that the huge crapshoot that the music industry has established, wherein a small minority of music gets major backing and the rest is given limited exposure at best, is a rational marketplace. If musicians in aggregate were less interested in becoming big stars, and more interested in making music and being justly compensated for it, the labels would lose all leverage over artists. For every Madonna there are 99 acts that got signed and never made any real money, because the labels were running a company store setup. The message has been put out by Courtney Love, Janis Ian, et. al. for years now. You have to be blind and deaf not to know that this is the system.
There is no longer any need for the enormous middleman structure that sustains the music industry. Hardly anyone is satisfied with the music being generated by the big labels. There are plenty of musicians who are content to play music and have more control over how their music is distributed. When the majority of musicians accept that a business model built on bloated middlemen is not in their best interests, the rest of us will benefit as well.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Whitepaper at 11PM/EST!
Think about the overall benefit of banning music. No more MTV with it's gold teeth rap stars going' 'yeah yeah yeah' endlessly. (no, none of us hear what you are sayin' or 'feel you') No more bubble headed pop stars. (exception needs to be made for Jessica Simpson wearing short shorts. Lets ban stuff but not get crazy) No more R. Kelley... Then we could get back to the business of sharing credit card information and passwords to sensative government sites. Ah..the good old days of phone phreaking...
This from the porn industry: Glory Holes encourage anonymous sex
Seems to be the same idea.
There's a difference between ecourage and enables, something the RIAA seems to be overlooking.
DNS (The Domain Name System) is a system that stores information about hostnames and domain names in a type of peer to peer (p2p) distributed database on networks, such as the Internet. Of the many types of information that can be stored, most importantly it provides a physical location (IP address) for each domain name, and lists the mail exchange servers accepting e-mail for each domain. The second some butt-head says that all P2P is bad, I will suggest we start with DNS! Let's see the RIAA weasel their way out of that one!
In the article, it states that "Other companies in the peer-to-peer file-swapping market include i2Hub, BitTorrent, WinMX and Free Peers, maker of file-swapping software BearShare." THIS DOES NOT PUT THEM ON THE RIAA "HIT LIST". Come on now, learn to read.
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
Guns cause gun crime,
Porn makes rapists,
Cars make people want to speed,
and drugs make addicts.
Given that all but one of those are pretty much banned in the UK I don't see why P2P shouldn't follow. That doesn't mean I agree with the ban any more than I agree with the ban on pron, guns and drugs, just that the 'Government' may see fit to ban it.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
High CD prices do also...
We have TCP/IP, the foundation of the technology that allows people to use P2P Software.
We have Microsoft Windows, on which most P2P Software will run, Including Kazaa, Morpheus, Limewire, and Bit Torrent.
We have x86. On which Windows, and Linux (Quite possibly Mac OS X later on) run, that can encourage users to pirate movies, and music.
We have the iPod, iRiver, and various media players, for us to play said pirated content.
We have open-source efforts, like DeCSS, and WASTE.
Now, does it seem a little strange to go after file swappers, rather than take a look at the inherent Software, and Hardware technoligies that make it all possible?
No, let's go one better. How about we look at the prices for said CD Media? I have no problem paying an artist for their work, but I'll be buggered if I'll pay £19.99 for something that I can get for cheaper on the second-hand rack. Added into the high prices, the RIAA are suing fans of the music, and video they enjoy so much.
Are they *trying* to alienate their customers?
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
I really do they have something here. I investigated this much further then they did (about 7 seconds) and came up with the ultimate solution.
What they have doe is going to the source, wich is good. They just did not went deep enough. I thought harder and came up with:
Ban all music. No music, no piracy.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Comparing the warcraft patch downloader to edonkey is like comparing a hunting riffle to an assault weapon. Trying to say they are one and the same is not helping anybody. If you defend your edonkey with the shield of patch downloaders then you should lose your patch downloaders.
Like guns encourage murder ?
"But they succeeded in showing evidence that Kazaa did that which which convinced the Supreme Court this Spring"
Wrong. they managed to convince the supreme court through bribery and whining -- i mean valid argument.. that there should be a new standard specifically for p2p.
Since it was a case analyzing summary judgment, the USSC had no standing to actually pronounce judgment over weather they qualify as "inducing" (they also were really out on a limb declaring this active inducement "bench legislation" as is)
They tossed it back to the 9th which will now put the case through a full trial.. in other words THERE HAS YET TO EVEN BE A COMPLETE JUDGMENT ON THIS NEW STANDARD.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The "I download Linux distros" argument was always a bit shaky
Just out of curiousity, why? What in the slightest is shaky about it? I download Linux distros from BitTorrent. I download a lot of Free software from BitTorrent. Pretty much everything I download these days that's of any significant size comes from BitTorrent, and I haven't downloaded anything "sketchy" in years and years.
Is it a shaky argument because it's not a commercial company distributing a paid product? Because the masses are doing something different than I? Because Linux is only used by dirty pirates who only want things for free anyway?
Why do you perceive a difference between a Knoppix ISO and a WoW patch? They're both 100% legal.
I'm genuinely curious, why?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
You could have left WinMX right where it was without problem. It's one of the only P2P applications without adware/spyware/unnecessary crap included in the package.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
" If the producer themself commits acts of abuse, they are clearly not only committing those acts, but also acting in contravention of their own use policies. And any communication that they are committing that abuse is clearly promotion of that abuse, in the "do as I do, not as I say" manner."
they said very clearly that ACTIVE ENCOURAGEMENT must be demonstrated, and that the failure to design the product to the RIAA's specifications (e.g. filtering which doesn't work and hinders legitimate transfer) does not qualify absent other objective evidence.
They don't do a good job setting up an objective test, thus leaving the ruling open to slimy and underhanded activist sellout judges, but they still said this is not the RIAA's free ticket to force every tech firm to redesign their products, p2p or otherwise.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Digital media and communication encourages piracy.
*points to topic.. says nothing else*
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Usenet and irc are still where its at. torrents are just this years fad and will die as soon as something else comes along.
Just because it's a hole a guy would stick his dick in it.
What do you mean "FTP next"? You can legitimately attack FTP by attacking the host. FTP is static, so if you find an illegal file, slam the site hosting it. That simple.
So WinMX was both sent, and NOT sent, a letter. Which is it? Or are there 2 WinMXs?
Btw, isn't WinMX a Canadian company? How can the the RIAA be sending them anything at all about this?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Damn RITA*, if they took all the money the spend telling people that there are easy ways to get their content/crap for free they might be able to hire real song writers and real singers, the ones who don't lip-sync.
Yes, "piracy" does exist, but they want to use it as the fall guy for their dropping profits, they can't admit their creatiions are so bad they suck and blow at the same time. Maybe they're spending too much sueing people and printing 'anti-piracy' on everything warning the people who went out and bought a CD that "piracy" exists. This last week I purchased the SW-E3 soundtrack, used of course, with the bonus DVD video soundtrack collection and the FBI anti-piracy warning is printed on everything. I can understand having it one the back of the case, but not on the disks, that just makes them look ugly. I wonder when they're going to realize that the paying customers are not going give away what they spend their hard earned money on. They pay less attention to P2P and focus on the leaks within the industry. The tens of thousands of copies downloaded with P2P apps arn't going to be there if they stop the first copy from getting out.
Stop sueing the Internet!!! Since they claim people are sharing and trading thier music with it, it must be possible for them to use this Internet thing to make a profit, and no, legal settlements don't count. iTunes and the like are a start, but the content they sell is of very low quality and DRM-ed. They're not selling a song, they're just letting you rent a low quality demo version, I don't use them for this reason and the limited library. Enough people have a broadband connection and will probably be willing to wait a few more seconds for a version worth listening to, at leats 320+kbpsVBR.
*forget about RIAA, it's really the RITA, Recording Industry Trust on America
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Isn't the fact that it's peer to peer kind of by definition preventing them from being wiped out?
If the RIAA didn't make such popular music then there would be nothing to illegally download, so clearly they are at fault and must cease and desist their production of music products which can infect otherwise legitimate P2P networks.
In my experience it's not the P2P's that encourage illegal downloading, it's RIAA (or their agents) that discourage legal downloading.
Let me give you an example: I needed the opera Carmen the other day, so I went to download it.
Walmart.com: only permitted Internet Explorer. (I use Firefox mostly.)
Broker 1 (CDNOW or similar): didn't have it.
Broker 2 (some other one): wanted over $40 with two tracks missing. (What!?!?)
iTunes: required me to download some software---I just want the music!
Certain BitTorrent site: typed 'bizet', clicked 'Carmen' and it downloaded. (I have source to a BT client, so I figure it's okay to install.)
While I'll eventually buy the conventional CD, I'm afraid online music sales has a way to go until it has the music I want with a licence/format I find convenient (MP3 or OGG, regular copyright restrictions).
LOWER CD PRICES BY 3-5 BUCKS AND MAYBE PEOPLE WILL DOWNLOAD LESS!
I just bought the new System of a Down CD, 'Mezmerize'.... i spent about 20 bucks for 30 minutes of music. now if this went down to around 12-14 dolla, i would have bought their other CDs at the same time, now i have to wait til the wad of money in my pocket builds up.
Oh, and same with movies (MPAA), lower the stupid movie ticket prices by 2-3 dollars and i BET your sorry fat executive asses that your ticket sales will increase at least 40%
--------
Tip to people: Instead of DLing on your own and getting yourself in to risky situations, go to LAN parties and download from other people's machines. Good source for music and other questionable media.
Blah blah blah. blah blah. blah. Must be my damned iPod causing me to go deaf...
At least for some. Cohen (Bittorrent) can simply point to World of Warcraft's patch system, slackware.org's torrent distributions, and/or any of the hundreds of other legit software companies using BT to distribute their software. That certianly qualifies as a substanital non-infringing use. They then show their promotion materials (website, etc) as not promoting copyright infringement and it's pretty much a lock.
Remember: The courts didn't say that nobody can use your program for illegal uses, that would outlaw, well, everything. They just said that you cannot promote your program for illegal uses. So BT, which is just promoted as distributed HTTP, is fine. If I produce "Sycraft's L33t Warez App 1.0" that is specificly advertised for finding copyrighted music, I could be liable.
Also, as with most things, if you can show a substantial non-infringing use, you are good right there. You say "sure some people may use it for illegal things, even though we said not to, but look, it reall DOES have a legal use, and not just a token one."
In the case of BT, any lawsuit would probably be thrown out pretrial as they'd fail to make a prima facia case. Since there is no evidence I'm aware of Cohen promoting BT for illegal use, there's no evidence on which to bring a suit.
When will the riaa get it through their skulls that this kind of campaing can be compared to the so called "war on terrorism". They will never be able to stop illigal downloading until they realize they are no longer going to be able to charge $18(US) for a cd. People don't want to go to a store to by a cd anymore; they want to download the song they heard on the radio that they thought was sweet. I personally think record companies in general are heading out. Bands and musicians really don't need them anymore to promote their music, or to sell it for that matter. With the kinds of software available, and a huge marketing tool, a la internet, at the fingertips most musicians and bands are fully capable of getting their music out to the general public. I think it will be some time before this really picks up, but believe me, I think they realize they are on their way out the door(due in part the rediculouse amounts of money they charge bands and musicians to even create an album, not to mention the fact that they must take a huge percentage of the profits to fill their fat pockets). I recently visited a site,Taxi.com, that is the first step in getting to this point. (Albeit a small one)
w00t
What about an open version of say, Kazaa, where no one is directly the owner of it. Could this work?
1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
OK, the problem here is that P2P is being used to do something illegal, i.e. copyright infringement. There are warnings on the software that say don't, but people are ignoring them and committing the infringement anyway. So the companies that produce the software should stop producing it? Well, the RIAA produces a product that is being used to commit copyright infringement. They place warnings on the records that say don't, but people ignore them. So, by their own argument, isn't the RIAA just as responsible?
After all, cars can be used to help steal things. I could drive to the store, steal a bunch of CDs, and then drive off.
Plus cars can be used for other, more lethal purposes. Property damage, assault & battery, murder...the list goes on! I think it's time congress passed a new law restricting the use of cars to only those who can PROVE they won't use one to commit a crime.
Why do news organizations continue to give the RIAA (and MPAA) air time? We all know they are smoking crack and yet the news folks continue to spread the 2nd hand smoke around like its still in style. Maybe they should write an article as to why the RIAA and MPAA are pieces of shit and should be spit on every chance one gets.
No, because neither of these are considered peer to peer.
since in this argument, any twisted logic can be considered meaningful, I toss this obvious one out.
if they didn't release music, there would not be anything to pirate.
right?
This will probably get me modded as flamebait, but whatever.
Everytime there's an article about P2P software being used for illegal distribution of music and other media, the typical response "We use P2P for linux distros and open source code and warcraft patches and blah blah blah. We use it for legal things, therefore it's not evil." However, when it comes down to it, is anyone actually deluded enough to believe that P2P isn't being used for illegal uses. I mean, we all have gigabytes of MP3s that we got from "somewhere", and while I'm sure you got all of yours legally, how about your friends, your co-workers, your classmates and other acquaintences. Why is it that we always try to justify P2P without coming up with any solution to the rampant pirating that we all know is happening? "Music sucks and is expensive" and "Movies suck and are expsive" are not excuses to be pirating it.
Crap manufactured pop, could it?
Nah, couldn't be. . .
its funny because a few years ago i found a song done by i believe ginsberg that listed every possible way of being, and then summurized it in a phrase. really well done
something like
" the nancy regan skeleton says just say no,
the rastaman skeleton say blow nancy blow!"
anyways, i would never have found that and thus got a small pang of enjoyment from it, without p2p.
what happened to the time when all artists wanted you to hear their music? now they want you to buy it, in preference to just hearing it. what a wonderful world.
*addition, the lyrics to the song are located here
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
After all, he had the sense to post anonymously.
"Are FTP and /usr/sbin/scp next?"
Yes, run for the hills!
Actually we need to outlaw the internet because that encourages trafficing of Pornography, Offensive Violent Material, SOFTWARE PIRACY, MUSIC PIRACY, MOVIE PIRACY, and baby eating alien molesters from California.
Ave Molech Setting
P2P protocols DO encourage illegal downloading... in the same way the crowbars encourage breaking and entering! The P2P developers should be in the clear as long as they admonish users NOT to transfer copyrighted material. Imagine what would happen to crowbar manufactures if they started advertising things like Even the toughest hardened steal locks are no match for the new Smash-n-Grab 3000 (TM) crowbar!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If everything were free-as-in-beer nobody would need to steal.
I'm not suggesting dumping capitalism - the point is making claims that "x encourages behavior y" are not in and of themselves very meaningful.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Boy these people piss me off.
Weapons encourage murder;
Printing technology (since the time of Gutenberg) encourages counterfeiting;
Cars encourage drunk driving;
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
Is this not the same thing they have been saying since day one? P2P does offer several advantages for legitimate downloads and further more decreasing bandwidth requirements for companies who wish to disperse software without the cost of large amounts of bandwidth. It is human nature to take advantage, as long as the means are there piracy will thrive on. But you cannot do away with a protocol that has great benefit when used legitimatly.
Need cheap, customized, and quality bandwidth or hosting on any business scale? Visit www.ENetpresence.com
This is the "error" in RIAA's new campaign: they're claiming p2p networks have to stop "enabling" copyright violation. This isn't what the Supreme Court said, and I'd put money on the idea that RIAA knows it.
For this reason, and the fact that they're going after BitTorrent (a system in which the inventor specifically warned people off of copyright violation using the system, and which is routinely used for legal downloads), I think this is a true desperation move, and one that's not entirely about stopping illegal file sharing.
Kythe
I know noone is goign to read this post and i'm dead drunk too. p2p has NOT harmed the industry in any way whatsoever. Most indy bands make money of touring and t-shirts, not record sales. they reach out to listeners by giving out free mp3s. by spreading their songs on p2p networks they are able to reach a larger audience. true mucisians don't really care about making money of their music, they just want people to enjoy their work.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
You're selling optional luxury, not bread.
Take a look at this $20 bill. It's part of my disposable income. This is as close as you're getting to it.
Shut up, the stupid sheep, er, masses, don't know that it even exists!
*Shhhhh!!*
Er, I mean, FTP, what's that??
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
And I think almost everyone who cares about music would agree that the music business is deeply flawed in its current incarnation. I'm not blaming artists for the state of the industry. But if artists don't take charge of the industry and make it more artist-centric, who will? Where is the collective voice of artists? Where are the big-money artists who are not just talking about changing the industry, but actually doing something about it?
It is FUCKING DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE to market and sell yourself as musician. That's why musicians still rely on labels to deal with those burdens.
No doubt. Marketing anything is difficult and expensive. But the big labels don't really know much about actual music, or about art, or about what people want to hear. They continuously underestimate the public and overestimate their own predictive powers. They're bad at the very things they purport to be good at. Why go back to them again and again for continued abuse?
Slashdot nerds seem to buy into the notion that the internet is some cure-all for the music business. Distribution is only one piece of the problem..
Reliance on distribution of recorded music in any form may be the main problem. What did musicians do before the advent of the phonograph? They played live music. Some musicians still play live music and make a decent living at it. They sell their own CDs at gigs and rely on word of mouth marketing. Performing live isn't for everyone, but I'm not sure there's anything written in stone which dictates that musicians will always and forever be able to make money from recorded music.
I'm not sure if it would be better or worse for musicians and society at large, but if live performances actually drove the market, we might see the balance of power shifting back to artists. As it stands in the Album Era, artists are obviously getting screwed, but too few of them are really trying to reshape the industry in any meaninful structural way.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Hey, people wouldn't be pirating music it wasn't for the artists producing it! If we were talking about drugs here, the law gives harsher fines for those who produce and deal drugs than for the average user, so shouldn't the same apply here? So really, the RIAA needs to send one one of those letters to itself before someone really gets hurt.
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
yeah, but nothing beats Bittorrent. Nothing more unobtrusive than a P2P app that runs in headless mode :)
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
No. The Constitution, with very few exceptions, limits what the government can do, but not private citizens. You can refuse to sell a gun to someone for whatever reason you like. Freedom of speech does not mean the local newspaper has to print my story.
For the RIAA in particular, this fight has always been less about stopping illegal file sharing than it is about maintaining their business model. The legal use of P2P technology potentially spells the end of many (if not most) record companies, since they may not be needed anymore.
As I wrote above, The fact that they're going after BitTorrent and the fact that they're deliberately misinterpreting the Supreme Court's decision to say that "enabling" copyright violation is now taboo tells me that this is a true desperation move. They're trying to use the courts and use legislation to maintain their business when market forces say they're obsolete.
Kythe
why not impose a ban on the internet? because having the internet encourages people to illegally download stuff....
Accept any challenge, No matter the odds.
Bulletin: The RIAA announced today a series of lawsuits targeting a technology that facilitates copyright piracy. The RIAA warned that this new technology called "libraries" allows people to share intellectual property with the only entrance requirement being an easy to procure "library card."
I say lets shut down the makers of Sudafed because their product entices people to make Meth. I'm sure someone in the RIAA owns stock in Pfizer.
>RIAA Says P2P Encourages Illegal Downloads
Yup, and matches encourage arson and knives encorage murder.
and ftp here in public on /. ...
Now the RIAA is going to find out about ftp and ssh (and the www) adnd shut it all down
That was very funny. In case you're still wondering Doc, take a breathe, detach, and look back at your posts after the original and subsequent replies. If those aren't rants then you're using the Bill Clinton dictionary.
:D
That's the thing I love about (and will miss when they're gone) the looney left when they've been voted out of power, comedy relief.
Anonymous delusional Coward, the post they called a rant wasn't a rant. Then, after they and I came to some mutual understanding, I did rant. They didn't comment on that, and I didn't deny it - nor would I have.
You are laughing your ass off only at your own retarded reading skills. I guess with your boy Bush revealed as a tiny little man who can't even button his own shirt, his ratings plummeting to hell, and even idiots like you beginning to realize that your life might depend on that moron, for another 3 years, you don't have much else to laugh at. So enjoy laughing at yourself. We're going to have lots more fun like that, because people like me who see the truth aren't going away anytime soon.
One of the rightwing's most pitiful traits is its insistence on cutting quotes and pasting them out of context to prove your points - which exist only at the tops of your heads.
--
make install -not war
...if the RIAA would help ensure that the costs for purchasing said works remained affordable. (e.g. Charging 17.99 for a hard copy of a CD, yet the charge for the same CD only downloaded from a retailer....still 17.99.)
The consumer feels just as shafted by the recording industry as the artists do. The real criminal is the RIAA.
Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
The internet enables the musician to sell directly to the public. People can stream and download some music and then buy the CD. In theory the middleman of record companies is no longer necessary. The rub is the Media exposure and promotion. Record Companies are in bed with Media conglomerates. The days of bringing a record into a studio and having the jockey play it are gone except on internet and college radio. However to get your music on the air in major rotation on commercial radio you have to be a signed artist. People will then buy your music because they percieve it as valuable. There are many artists on the net that are better than the people the record companies put out but since they are not part of the media machine they are not percieved as valuable. It should not be this way, but it still is.
Why would you want to keep scp in /usr/sbin? Is /usr/sbin in your users' $PATH? I don't get it....
"The Internet is made of cats."
RIAA also claims that P2P kills kittens and would steal your grandma given the chance.
http://www.warezclient.com/ Interesting that warez p2p has added an inbuilt, direct to media library CD ripper. It's right on their front page. I encourage readers to draw their own conclusion about warez's attitude to copyrighted material. Try finding a commercially produced audio CD that doesn't say "All rights reserved" on it.
What about CD or DVD burner ? it is now easy to copy a whole CD from a friend. Maybe all these devices should also be prohibited. Anyway, we all pay taxes on free media, yes you pay rigths on an empty CD or even HD as you are all potential pirats and thief. P2P is maybe the solution to recover the money stoled on empty medias.
Guy Corbaz
I've heard many things about the RIAA, but never that they have any connections to the Mob. Are there any books or websites that discuss this? I'm curious if your statement is based on hearsay or anything documented.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ