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."

18 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Obviously by Rekolitus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more people that take court action, the more bitter people will be, and the less likely people will buy from them.

    1. Re:Obviously by AoT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed.

      The tighter they clench their fist, the more files will slip from their grasp.

      But really, look at this logicaly. The record companies never thought they could stop this with law suits, they were forced to sue to keep the idea that downloading music is wrong in peoples heads. This is a rear-guard action while the big companies work on new business plan. Of course, whether those plans work or not is another story.

    2. Re:Obviously by mboverload · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > The more people that take court action, the more bitter people will be, and the less likely people will buy from them.

      Yep.

      Unlike some people, I have NO problem with the music they produce. I'm one of those losers that like Green Day. I like mainstream music like Dashboard Confessional, Fall Out Boy, or even Justin Timberlake. Big fucking deal. Sue me.

      However, I can't buy msuic from them on principal. Just like I wouldn't buy blankets from the online Al-qaeda shop, I can't buy music from them. Yes, an extreme example but it lays out my point in black and white:

      I don't buy things/support people/companies I think are "true evil".

      I don't buy from Walmart, I don't buy music from the RIAA, and I don't buy ten year old girls from the local human trafficker.

    3. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Copyright was never about the experience, it was always about the product. They want a copyright on the experience of something; afterall, the Eifel tower is an experience and it's copywritten, as is times square in new york. You can't take pictures of it; security guards will forcibly confiscate the film. Same goes for a number of other things in America.

      Copyright was always for the profitable production of various works; works being vynle records, tape casetts, music rolls, ect. It's come to the point where it's now on the experience of something, which it was never meant to be. But pioneering judges and profiteering politicians have sold their power for profit and in their attempt to gain an income, have sold off nearly all of their vested commodity.

      Frankly, if you're sharing music, you aren't a bad guy. If you're on the streets of Chicago selling burned CD's and harddrives full of various works then yeah, your but should be busted because you're selling a product, not sharing an experience.

      It may seem sad to some that we now have been spoiled by this technology. Frankly, technology has brought us closer together, and we have now nearly reached the ultimate goal copyright set out to achieve; a technology that lets everyone produce and spread experiences and media, for free. The new market, undoubtedly, will be for experience preservation. 89 cents to buy an MP3 is a bad business model; 89cents to gain access to someone's perminant music preservation service and $50 to order a hyper-long-lasting recording of it is going to be the new business model. Because of gnutella, I now have access to a breath and depth of information never before realized, and in the future, it will only exponentially increase. I can now hit a few websites and get enough books to last me for the rest of my life if I read them back to back, in mabye 2 or 3 days.

      The recording industry cannot compete with technology so they've tried to destroy technology, and have thus far failed and will fail. The cost of producing media and experience has gone down and down and as it does we get closer to living in a completly virtualised and created reality with created experiences and created ideas.

      Ownership and property will become obsolete. I look foward to the ultimate ego/identity dissolution experience it will be. Of course, there will be those who will refuse the change and will lead a path of destroying themselves and will try to drag everyone else under them. That's the basic idea behind revelations.

      If we've got a problem with filesharing, wait until someone figures out a way to make a home-fabrication machine the size of a car that can produce anything a machinist can. ;)

  2. Makes perfect sense to me... by balloot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    True, the level has stayed the same .. but perhaps without the lawsuits and FUD campaign the amount of file sharing would have grown?

    The number of users of iTunes and iPods music devices has increased, why hasnt the level of file sharing? Seems either lawsuits worked, or people prefer convenience of using the itunes store. I dont think it's healthy for the lawsuit factor should be blindly dismissed as ineffective.

    The point I actually want to make is we have to be objective and have to know where the threats are. After all, no point in ignoring something that might be true. Maybe counter FUD is needed, or better file sharing methods?

  4. They sure taught me a lesson! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm taking my w4r3z back to Usenet and IRC, where it's safe.

  5. You mean... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Other conclusions? by RonnyJ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Court Action Does Not Reduce File-Sharing

    You can also interpret the data another way from this, if you so desire:

    35% of illegal file-sharers have cut back*
    14% of illegal file sharers have increased activity*

    *Jupiter survey of 3,000 people in UK, Germany and Spain

  7. Lawsuits don't stop filesharing by Foofoobar · · Score: 4, Funny

    And a resounding DUH rang round the world.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  8. Sometimes "misunderstood" by mendaliv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  9. Don't forget to crank up the phonograph by VampireByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Don't forget to crank up the phonograph by monopole · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe if we disclose the existence of group to Bush he'll misinterpret the word and declare a war on phonography! We just have to convince him that DRM is related to WMDs

  10. Just goes to show by ztwilight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Just goes to show by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ITYM "something that people don't think is wrong", or perhaps "something that people don't think should be illegal". Basically everyone knows it's illegal to trade copyrighted material on P2P services without permission from the copyright holder, just like everyone knows it's illegal to drive 65 in a 60 zone or cross the street when the sign says DONT WALK, and everyone knew back in the days of Prohibition that alcohol was illegal. They just don't care, because (1) they know they aren't hurting anyone and (2) the chances of getting caught are slim to none.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  11. Each time you download music illegally.... by ByteGuerrilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    .... RIAA lawyers kill a kitten.

    --

    A block of code, sufficiently well-written, is indistinguishable from magick.

  12. But...internet use grew during that time frame by cshay · · Score: 4, Informative

    You would expect file sharing to grow naturally as more and more people use the internet. The fact that it has merely stagnated suggests that the litigation is succeeding somewhat. My own mother, who doesn't even use a computer, warned me not to file share the other day. She had "heard that people are getting sued".

  13. Getting back to a normal relationship between by burni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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&#180;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&#180;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&#180;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&#180;t be public domain ?

    Artwork isn&#180;t pure commercial, because it&#180;s part of our culture.

    a.) I&#180;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&#180;t kill music,
    Copy is a sign of life,
    Hearing & Copying is a sign of appreciation,
    </b>
    and leads to prospering business.