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.
Apache can be used to serve illegal downloads. Film at 11!
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Counting down the days until agents come and take the . a v and i keys off my keyboard
Obviously we must make TCP/IP illegal immediately!
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
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
... men I am so tired of this bs.
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.
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.
Too late, it's on their list now.
Let's just hope they never find out that we're spreading files encoded in Slashdot moderation scores. If anyone ever starts to wonder why the scores bear no relation to the comments then we're ruined.
Exactly! I can fire up gtk-gnutella and find damn near anything I want: Janice Joplin, any Niel Young ever, Lectures by Noam Chompsky, Dead Kenedy's, anything. Since Wallmart and Circuit city have put every real record/music store out of business, my choices would be limited to whatever they can make the most money off of - which all seems to be rap or hip-hop right now. Commercial radio isn't worth listening to at all anymore, and frankly I have more luck finding music that I want to hear at yard sales than on racks in a store.
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.
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!
--
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.
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.
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]
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