Slashdot Mirror
Court Action Does Not Reduce File-Sharing
gollum123 wrote to mention a BBC report that despite numerous court cases, litigation does not appear to be reducing the amount of file-sharing. From the article: "The level of file-sharing has remained the same for two years despite 20,000 legal cases in 17 countries. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI) said it was 'containing" the problem and more people were connecting to broadband."
The more people that take court action, the more bitter people will be, and the less likely people will buy from them.
The people who get nailed in court for file-sharing seem very remote. It just doesn't seem like a file-sharing conviction will ever affect "normal" people who just use Limewire every so often when they need something. These people make up 99% of the file-sharing population.
1. People don't think that it's a big risk if there's a 1 in 100,000 chance they'll be the next one sued (especially if they don't swap too much).
2. Suing people tends to piss them off, making them less likely to buy from you.
Well I think it's obvious what the people want, and that's less strict copyright laws. I'm pretty sure democracy is not about who has the richest lobbyists, so the RIAA can kiss my ass.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Yeah, those kids who steal cookies, comic books, and CDs always grow up and get involved in armed robberies.
I find the last paragraph of the article mildly amusing:
[Mr. Kennedy] said DRM was a "sometimes misunderstood element of the digital music business".
I wonder if he knows who is misunderstanding it...
I wouldn't mind paying if the money went to the artist, and it was a decent price, but I'm sorry £9.99 for an album, of which the artist gets £1 (if that), it doesn't seem right. Until they sort out the corruption then I will not be doing business with them.
They are called The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries? Wow, that explains the ancient mindset of the music industry. Imagine the automotive industry still refering to themselves as horseless carriage manufactures!
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
The level of file-sharing has remained the same for two years despite 20,000 legal cases in 17 countries.
Maybe THAT is the reason why record companies are seeing their profits decline? Court costs are not trivial.
Wouldn't we expect the level of file sharing to go up, proportional to the growing internet population? If it has, in fact, stayed flat that would indicate something is creating downward pressure. Whether it's the lawsuits or not is another question entirely.
You can't outlaw something that people don't think is illegal. Just how outlawing liquor in the 30's made it more popular than ever.
Who moved my sig?
I hate to agree with "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries," but if filesharing has leveled off, I think it's reasonable to say that the suing is having some effect. Without some threat, I think free on-demand movie downloading would be spreading like wildfire, not leveling off.
Something I did when I was a kid, which I'm ashamed of now, was shoplift just about everything that wasn't nailed down. And I was big into warez for a while. But now that I make a comfortable salary, my time is worth more to me than I would save by hunting down stuff online through nefarious means. (The shoplifting thing quickly faded as the risks grew when I reached maturity.)
/. visitors. I would guess that a large majority of those who are not students are, like me, nicely into middle class.
It would be interesting to see a demographic survey of
Anyway, the point here is that while I used to pirate a bunch of music, that too has faded. Now I mostly grab free music, mostly live stuff from etree. And I'm pretty embittered by the big music business. What fools.
However, unlike shoplifting or software piracy, I'm not really ashamed of the music piracy. All I was doing was something that was legal in the analog world. I was moving my own music from one place to another, or I was borrowing a copy of a friend's cd. And listening to a cd makes me want to go to a concert, and that's how their biz model should have worked.
Or they can just sue everybody.
Incidentally, I feel the same way about ripped TV shows. If I miss a show that was on yesterday, I still want to watch the show! All I'm doing is consuming what they air for free!
One spends money on things others can do more efficiently.
The price we pay is based on our assessment of the time it took to make the exact item/service we're getting.
Music live I can see paying $15-$50 or more -- supply is low, so demand sets the price.
Digital music has a near infinite supply. The market pushes costs to zero.
if filesharing has leveled off, I think it's reasonable to say that the suing is having some effect.
Not necessarily. There are loads of other factors out there, like the growth in popularity of pay-for-download sites and the like.
consumers and artists
1.) artists need money to live and be productive
2.) artists need consumers who appreciate their art work, and pay for them
3.) consumers need artists too, because artists are the basic glue which upholds
and inspires our culture, every decade is mostly described by their artists,
and the artwork,
what you think of when I say 80s, perhaps there is a famous tune floating
through your ears, or you see a picture of the androgynous "Boy George",
or see a black pontiac transam cruising, it´s part of our culture,
or even parts of our identity.
<b>artwork belongs to both society and creator </b>
so as I wrote in the subject it´s a two way relationship where no side
can exist without the other, so from my point of view if you are an artist and create artwork, on the one hand you should have the right to sell your artwork,
and you should have the right to prosecute those people who sell
your creations, because this is a really damage in your oportunity to
sell your artwork, but persecuting private fileshares, which could not
pay for all artwork they have on their HDs aren´t really a loss,
because most of them still buy the artwork they appreciate most,
they are consumers who are willing to pay for artwork.
But accepting that you created artwork and release it to the public you also
must accept that since release you don´t own your creation entirely anymore,
it becomes part of the cultural heritage of a group, a society or even the worlds cultural heritage.
So concluding this, and citing what was said in a thread above, the more people you take to court the more bitter people there will be, the more consumers
you will lose.
<b>The copyright has gone mad since the "Mickey Mouse" - act induced by Bono.</b>
In germany we call the copyright "Urheberrecht"
Which means the right of the creator on his creation, but why should
the copyright last longer than the creator lives, because he is dead,
so he and his work were and are part of our culture, he participated
on the wealth of the consumers of his artwork, so why after his death
his artwork shouldn´t be public domain ?
Artwork isn´t pure commercial, because it´s part of our culture.
a.) I´m against commercial copyright violators
b.) I provide an allowance of private and fair use,
perhaps using a culture flat fee, where you pay non directional
so creators of swapped artwork get a compensation
c.) many artists owe their public success to the napsters and eDonkeys
of the world, for example "Gorillaz"
d.) music industry is stuck into a total commercial way of thinking,
they forgot that those private file swappers they sue, are also mostly
consumers, and that private fileswapping can boost record sales
e.) we even have recuded file swapping rates, but the record sales
are still decreasing.
<b> Copy doesn´t kill music,
Copy is a sign of life,
Hearing & Copying is a sign of appreciation,
</b>
and leads to prospering business.
From what I've read on the eMule forums, I'd suspect that the lack of growth in P2P use has more to do with packet shaping than with the threat of being hauled into court. I'd also question where they're getting their numbers, especially the "870 million illegal songs" figure in the article. My understanding is that the #1 P2P application is currently bittorrent, and that the only hard data on bittorrent use is raw bandwidth consumption. Who's to say how many people are using it, or for what?
It also seems to me that the campaign to equate downloading with theft is something of a double-edged sword. My girlfriend was dubious about the legality of downloading music directly from a band's website; she thought the RIAA might have it up as a form of entrapment. If people assume that all downloading runs the risk of a lawsuit, they may be less inclined to use legal services.
Overall, it sounded like the typical industry PR piece on the subject: "We're winning the war against P2P! DRM is really good for you! Buy our ringtones! etc."
For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.