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?"
... men I am so tired of this bs.
Ding ding ding. You've said the magic word of the decade. Your argument now has immediate credibility, and anyone who disagrees with you is unpatriotic.
Thanks for playing!
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.
There's a big blur obscuring the view of where liability lies in what someone does with what someone else makes.
I'm not sure anyone (RIAA definately included) could be able to pull off a convincing argument one way or another.
Better to find a way to go after abusers rather than users.
S-
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!!
Further, prior to P2P, web sites were used. P2P evolved as ISPs got wise to the illegal content and started cutting of people's accounts. If current P2P technology gets killed, another new technology will evolve to replace it. From what we've seen so far, each generation will be easier to use and harder to track back to the offending party.
Bottom line is that these little games the RIAA is playing aren't going to stop P2P's use for illegal purposes, and they have to realize this; they aren't idiots. If this were really about stopping distribution of illegal music downloads, they would have given up long ago. It's really about preventing indy bands from being able to distribute using those mechanisms and gaining popularity. It's primarily about maintaining strict control over the music market in the hands of their members, and it is disgusting.
Now, if the RIAA weren't so myopic about controlling distribution, they might see ways to take advantage of this. If, instead of suing the P2P users, they tried to get this stuff legalized (with mandatory identification) and tracked them for statistics, it's better than Neilsen ratings when it comes to finding out what music is popular. This can be used to help target advertising towards particular groups of people, and could be very lucrative for the industry.
Heck, the industry could use this as a means to figure out what bands are going to sell. Instead of A&R reps having to take a best guess, they could just do a live recording of a band and make it available, then see how many people bite, and use that to gauge the band's potential. It would save the industry millions---if not billions---of dollars on artists that never actually went anywhere.
Unfortunately, it's hard to convince someone to change their business model in much the same way as it is hard to convince a captain to abandon a sinking ship. If the RIAA drowns, thoughu, much like P2P technologies, another will take its place.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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!
--
It's safe to say that most handguns are used overwhelmingly for illegal activity. Most handguns are sitting idle waiting to protect someone who will never actually be attacked. The ones that are actually being used are predominantly being used to do the attacking....
It's also safe to say that most computers are used overwhelmingly for illegal activity, since the vast majority of traffic on the internet is illegal downloads.
It's also safe to say that most automobiles are driven over the speed limit. Not a lot over, but most people do drive slightly above the posted speed limit.
So, by that standard, owning a handgun, a computer, or an automobile should be "looked into"....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So does this mean that if a company makes a product where file sharing of any kind is really easy, but is very adamant (in the form of statements and such) that it is not to be used for illegal purposes, it is in the clear? Like for example how tons of pirate groups nfo's state that their release is for testing purposes only, and you should support software makers? Can software developers skirt the ruling with such tactics?
How does it get addressed? Well, the first thing is to find the causes of the problem, and then remove whatever causes are appropriate. Perhaps the law is bad, the bad law is the only real "cause" here worth addressing, and resolution to the issue is to change the law. None of that goes against what I was saying in the first place.
My bro used to work at a gun shop and there is a reason why you can still purchase a weapon if a person says "I need a gun to kill my husband with".
The right to own a gun is a constitutionally protected. If you refuse to sell someone a gun for any reason other than the ones prescribed by your local, state, and federal laws - you are fucked. The gunshop will be sued into the ground, and the prosecution will win almost all of the time. You could have your license revoked, and you will probably be the target of much harrasment from gun lobbyists and fanatics.
ATL huh, I reside at 285 and Roswell Rd.
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....
"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!!
Hehe, not really that funny. (ok, shouldn't start that with a hehe)
I just setup some new XP boxes at work, now i have by default 5 boxes trying to share music on the network. Windows never asked if i wanted to share anything. How is giving me a folder labeled 'My Music' and then trying to automaticaly and without asking share it with the world NOT aiding infringement. Windows never told me not to put my music in My Music!
This seems alot more evil than a program that i have to install and/or makes me go search for stuff to copy.
Sounds like there's a market for a new type of recording company -- one that explicity and exclusively markets artists via p2p, iTunes, etc.
Though I think the recording industry as it stands won't survive for very long anyway, I think such a new service would hasten the fall.
Kythe
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