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?"
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.
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.
Apple also puts stickers on all iPods asking you not to pirate music.
Just because a company asks you not to do something doesn't mean that are necessarily liability free which is the point that the RIAA is trying to make.
Remember, in the RIAA's world, not only would software and hardware manufacturers say "please don't pirate" they would also take active steps in order to prevent such piracy absolutely... as impossible as such a dream is, the RIAA continues to strive for it every day.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sorry, I just get more and more annoyed that artists are buying into the "Don't STEAL my music" when they are getting screwed by the RIAA more than they are by even professional pirates. It blows my mind that it's just a given that you can't make any money off even well performing records because of "distrobution fees" and that all the money is made off touring, when it's touring that's expensive, and distrobution and promotion can be done essentially free, if the business model was every actually looked at instead of just blindly protected.
Never confuse volume with power.
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!
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.
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.
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
As I pointed out, I don't know how to produce evidence that one did not do something like "promote illegal abuse". It should be hard for a plaintiff like the RIAA to produce evidence to the contrary when there's no evidence that one did promote illegal abuse. But they succeeded in showing evidence that Kazaa did that which which convinced the Supreme Court this Spring. Even though the evidence only seemed (to me) to demonstrate that Kazaa wanted such abuse, even needed such abuse to grow to their expectations. I did not see actual evidence that they acted on those "desires".
My anticorporatist conscience is intrigued at the possibility that courts will recognize that we can read corporate "minds" in email and other internal documentation, impossible in human "persons". That make "corporate intent" consequential, with legal liability. But the same little voice tells me that such activities will only be used by larger or more politically bribing^Winfluential corporations against smaller ones, and against human "persons".
But what does making it "easy" to violate laws with a tool have to do with the responsibility for acting in that way? If a tool has no other use than violating the law, like maybe plastic handguns (though even they have contrived legitimate uses arguable for their countermeasures to legitimate detection methods), maybe its makers are partly responsible in contributing to its illegal use by another person. If a tool is an unsafe product (again, like handguns, which are claimed to have injured and killed "unintentionally" in most reported cases), and the maker or provider of that unsafe product does not adequately inform recipients of their knowledge of its danger, those knowing providers are probably even more responsible than the unwitting risk-taker who commits an injurious act. And of course providers of such tools which know their products are powerful, but don't demonstrate how to use them safely, and the degrees of risk that unwitting use could produce, are also negligent, having neglected to demonstrate the risks of their work.
But if someone produces a product that has "substantial legitimate use", and demonstrates only those uses, while warning explicitly against any illegal abuse, how are they "skirting" the issue? 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.
So there is quite a lot of sensible jurisprudence in the Grokster decision to prohibit promotion of abuse of an abusable product. The ruling would be a lot less threatening to legitimate operators if it included tests for violation clearer than "we found a memo that someone would be happy if someone outside abused our product". But that is the kind of earthly specification that our legal industry produces in lower courts. Which does always allow for the risks to be somewhat undefined. So, again, the lawyers win a lot for their shabby, inconclusive work, and engineers have to lose productive hours and sleep over worrying about mitigating the risks. Operating within the law, within "common sense", responsibly, even when producing an abusable product, isn't "skirting" the law. Though it's clear that such legitimate activity will be portrayed in that negative light.
--
make install -not war
From: Concerned Citizen
CC: The Horse You Rode In On
It has come to my attention that the various companies represented by the Recording Industry of America sell, promote, and distribute music that contains material of an objectionable nature which may encourage listeners to commit various criminal acts.
I demand that you immediately cease the sale, promotion, and distribution of any and all music which could be interpreted by your audience (and audience which includes impressionable young listeners) as endorsing, encouraging, and/or glorifying any of the following activities:
I thank you in advance for your prompt action in this urgent matter.
What's frothing about calling him corporatist? And what about his record suggests he's not corporatist? For your edification I submit his record - what little of it his BushCo team is willing to release to the public, or our republic of representatives.
BTW, I'm really impressed by the rightwing consistency inventing flaws in people accused of being "on the left" that are merely your own guilty conscience. Your post is, of course, a frothing rant shilling for the right wing. I know you keep using it because it works on so many millions of your own people, but it doesn't work on me. You're an empty suit afraid of your own shadow.
--
make install -not war