International Music Industry Amps Up Anti-P2P War

newtley writes to mention a BBC article discussing a new initiative against file-sharers by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. This international version of the MPAA is breathing down the necks of 8,000 users of file-sharing software. From the article: "The new cases cover file sharers in 17 different countries who have been allegedly using sites including BitTorrent, eDonkey, SoulSeek and WinMX. For the first time legal action is being taken in Brazil, Mexico and Poland. The IFPI said the actions affect a wide-variety of people: a laboratory assistant has been charged in Finland, while a parson has been served with action in Germany."

Comments

Canadian levies

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait to see the first Canadian sued, then him/her countersuing this group and/or the SOCAN for their levies since copying is legal for personnal usage in Canada.

"There is no excuse"

[Anonymous Coward]

"In each of the 17 countries involved in today's actions there are legal music services available to consumers. There is no excuse."

Pardon me, but in some countries it just might be legal to download for your own use. Like it used to be in Finland, before Tanja ex-Karpela now-Saarela, Jukka Liedes and the Gramex mafia sold out to the media biz.

And all those trained monkeys in the Parliament just keep on pushing the button as they are told by the party.

We might as well replace the "elected representatives" with remote-controlled robots. I bet they would be cheaper, too.

Yes, nowadays you can buy and download legally, IF the record label or rights holder in question has authorized your country to be the one who can download that specific track you want.

Why Bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

TBH, I haven't purchased a CD since about 1998. But I have lots of new music... *runs and hides* Why haven't I purchased a CD you ask? Because I can think of many many many more things to spend my hard-earned $20 on that will bring me much more joy than a CD. And now, with the advent of broadband, it now takes LESS TIME to download a CD than to drive to the store and get it. So why bother? Legality? Don't make me laugh.

Re:Why Bother?

[jb.hl.com]

You have a very fucked up definition of "customers". If people don't buy CDs, and instead download them, they're hardly "customers", are they?

They do have a way of making profit; it's called "selling copies of songs". They did it admirably until people worked out how to get songs for free. Just because it's possible to get songs for free, at the complete cost of those who financed and facilitated their production, does not mean that is something the record industry should "adjust" to. Frankly, I think a lot of the hostility towards the RIAA is more people afraid of them pissing on their free music parade.

Re:Why Bother?

[w128jad]

I'll quote Eben Moglen of FSF fame:
"If I can provide to everyone all goods of intellectual value or beauty, for the same price that I can provide the first copy of those works to anyone, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything? If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?"

I agree wholeheartedly. The record industry is struggling to keep alive a system that is artificial and long past due to be replaced. We as humans need to decide for ourselves how we will partake of human culture. The record industry will either adapt or die. Vilifying the masses of poor and unprivileged as "pirate" (someone who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without having a commission from any sovereign nation; murderers and rapists) for the "crime" of participating in human culture without paying to current powers is merely propaganda.

The inherent inequity in the current system which awards very few at the expense of many, and excludes artificially the majority of the human race from its own culture is wrong, and must be fought by any means. I not only take the position that is is not immoral to file share, but that it is our duty to file share. Just as it was our fore-father's duty to fight the tyranny of distant royalty which usurped our human liberties, it is our duty to stand opposed to the immoral laws of our nation that remove our liberties to share with our fellow man.

The fact that there are big winners with our currently system is overshadowed by the fact that there are a vast majority of losers.

Re:Why Bother?

[jb.hl.com]

This, my friend, is bullshit.

Do you think that producers work for free? Do you think CD duplication plants duplicate CDs for free? Do you seriously think that it's the "poor and underprivileged" who download, considering that one of the requirements for downloading music is a broadband connection and PC, and that people who aren't poor and underprivileged are very likely to download as well? Do you really think you're making any kind of useful point, playing the pirate-semantics game, like always happens when someone uses the dreaded P-word, which has been in common use for centuries?

You sir, are extremely deluded. If you download, or indeed buy and listen to, music, you are not participating in human culture, you are partaking of it. It is the artists who are participating in it, and it is they, those who ask for money in return for their work, who get screwed over the most when people gleefully take their work for free. Downloading devalues culture, if anything, and almost certainly depersonifies music. It presents music as nothing more than a stream of 0s and 1s that can be deleted or created at will and on demand, rather than a work of art which someone created using their own time, skill and effort.

Re:Why Bother?

[w128jad]

And you sir, are short sighted. The ethereal presentation of music as you describe (stream of 0s and 1s that can be deleted or created at will and on demand) is actually more traditional and ancient than its current digital manifestation, my insulting friend. Throughout all human history, with the exception of the dawn of the industrial revolution and its novel method of encapsulating sensory (auditory in this case) information to physical media (a short period indeed relative to human history), the temporal "existence" of music was fleeting. One had to be present to hear it, whether it be around a campfire, in a pub, a church, or in a concert hall. In that way, it was accessible to all walks of life, both as "partaker" and "participant", and wasn't artificially presented as being anyone's personal property. It was sound and inherently free.

As to whether or not I'm deluded or not, I think it is fair to say you are not in the position to judge, particularly based on such a short (and one way) discourse. I will say I disagree with you. Listening to music is an engaging activity for myself, and others. You are partaking yes, but *also* participating. You are participating by experiencing our world and incorporating those experiences into your being and spirit, and sharing those experiences with those around us. That is a fundamental part and reason for liberty.

Do I believe artists should be able to make a living from their craft? Certainly, I do. Do I think that should be accomplished by creating a legal toll-booth that all have to pass to experience culture? Hell fucking no.

I think there are other means of rewarding artists. I also think that this is a demonstratable fact. I need not mention how many countless people have pointing out that they have both downloaded to sample music before purchase, and they have paid to attend concerts of their favorite artists, as well as to download and experience music which they otherwise would not have given the time of day, let alone "pay" for. This gives not only popular artists a fair chance of compensation for their work, but also exposes us to artists who are not getting marketing exposier from the recording industry juggernauts.

As for your point on being "poor and underprivileged" is invalidated by the ownership of a personal computer and access to broadband internet access, are you kidding? Certainly any American, even a hobo on the street could be demonstrated to be wealthy when compared to the poorest of the world. The same could be said for any individual of any western nation. But the disparity between any common American that is file sharing, and the wealthiest pop star or record industry executive makes that relativity irrelevant. The power, political influence, and access to elements of human culture of those powerful individuals and organizations is artificial.

If we have the technical means for all the world to experience human culture at zero marginal cost, I think it is immoral to withhold it. To suggest that the world would then let its most cherished and famous artist starve as reward for their work is deluded as well, as you say. No famous artist is, or ever will be excluded from wealth and privelege, regardless of the particular system we use to compensate them. For me, at least, the current one is outdated and immoral given our technical capabilities.

I say we let it burn and see what arises from its ashes.

Re:MPAA != RIAA

[jackjeff]

They're the same bandits anyway!!! ;)

Freenet 0.5 Warez

[Anonymous Coward]

Freenet version 0.5 is where some people are going for warez - at least until 0.7 has a working open-net component.

Re:Vinyl to mp3 converter?

[paganizer]

Actually, you can get a high-end turntable these days with a USB port. I just use line-out to my nforce2 audio in, and sample at about double CD quality; that ALMOST gets all the sound that is on vinyl that a CD misses.
As for P2P, I can't use it anymore. My ISP politely asked me to stop, as it was really killing their ability to service their other customers.
I'm serious; they didn't threaten to throttle me, kick me off, or sue me, they very politely requested that I cut back as much as possible.
Which sucks, in a way. if they were assholes, i would have just circumvented whatever they tried. Now I have to play nice.
Grrr.

How soon before Tor incorporated into FS nets?

[davidwr]

Someday, maybe soon, the most popular peer-to-peer networks will have TOR or something similar built in and turned on by default, with the seed- and data-carrying nodes hidden behind .onion. Yeah the speed sucks but subpeonas suck worse.

I'd love to see the RIAA try to shut down a beowulf cluster of those babies.

Greed and Creativity

[hypoxide]

Since when do they go hand-in-hand?

Music is not a commodity, it is an art. It is not meant to be sold, it is meant to be heard and played. It is meant to be shared and it will be. Try as it may, the corporate music industry cannot stop this movement. I look forward to its rapture.

Re:Greed and Creativity

[hypoxide]

Music has hardly ever been about art. It's always been about leeching much from sponsors. Usually they were rich nobles, merchants, or priests.

Music has always been about art. Those who have chosen music as a profession do so with hopes that their music will provide an income sufficient for survival. As with any art form, especially the entertaining arts (dance, music, jest), the performer will most likely struggle to survive. Such has been the case with minstrels, jesters, painters, play writers, etc since their nascence. As with any employee, one needs a benefactor.

The only reason that you think music is an art...

Uhhh.

...is because of the centuries hold that they've had over impressing into the minds of the rich that to be cultured that you need to be able to play or identify "classical" music. My culture is different than that. Slashdot and webcomics are part of my culture. Music is part of my culture as being in the background of video games and what's on the radio on the way home.

"Classical" music is something to be appreciated. If one cannot appreciate it, oh well, their loss. To condescend toward one, or to be condescended upon by a social class for not knowing a classical piece... perhaps this is you drawing a stereotype? If you feel oppressed because of your lack of musical knowledge, that's really a shame but I can't figure out what that has to do with this. I'm sure there is music in the background of your video games, perhaps to provide a feel to the game or whatever. But to claim it is merely some ambient garble that really has no meaning is nonsense. It was created. It was composed by a musician--an artist--who has chosen video game music to be his medium.

As for "what's on the radio on the way home". That's fine. Music isn't for everyone, much the same as Celtic dance isn't for everyone. Certainly the former (more specifically "pop music") sports much higher exposure, but had it been the latter, one who is not interested would find it blasé and really have little appreciation for it. Personally I feel that the majority of music that makes it to the radio are awful, simple, anesthetized, pathetic, factory-line created, template garbage that's purpose is sale not creativity (with exceptions, of course). I'll stick to NPR.

What century did you walk out of?

The same one you did, where not everyone has the same scope of culture that you have.

Re:And I continue not to buy music

[MostAwesomeDude]

Agreed. One of the sad side effects of Idiot America is that the new generation doesn't appreciate amazing guitarwork or groovy bass lines or solid time or meaningful lyrics. Guitarists once were asked how often they practiced; nowadays they're asked how they manage to get on the radio so much.

Support artists who don't bow down before the RIAA. There are people, like me, that only publish under Creative Commons and won't ever sign a record contract. Find them, listen to them, support them. Odds are they sound better than anything you'll find on the radio.

Above all, stop buying the music! Most music is not worth the cartel's price of $20 a CD. Hell, I could get three weeks of gas to commute to university and work for $20. The RIAA is still making roughly $40 billion a year. Maybe you working alone can't make a difference. That's fine. There's more than just a few of us. We are already clear enough on our position and large enough in numbers that it is scaring the shit out of these fat-cat businessmen, and forcing them to react in a rather panicked manner.

They aren't suing people for the hell of it, and they aren't suing people to recoup money. They're doing it to instill fear. Show them that you aren't afraid to defy them.

Bittorrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know how they distinguish an uploader from a downloader on Bittorrent? This is the first time I've heard of bittorrent users being sued. Are there any details as to how much of a song one can upload before it's illegal? Is a 2 second sound clip illegal under international laws? Exactly how do the complaints against the bittorrent users read? Has any country made it illegal simply to visit the sites? How do they gather evidence as to who is seeding what? Do European countries make the pleadings publicly assessable? If so, where would I find a copy?

Re:But that isn't the spirt of copyright

[vertinox]

I say, put up or shut up. If you don't like what the RIAA does, if you think labels only offer music that sucks, if DVDs are overpriced or you don't like the "new release-newer release with extras" cycle, don't respond by taking their product on your own terms.

Let me remind you of what the spirit of copyright is according to the US Constitution

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

An author's exclusive right to his creation is mandated in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Intellectual Property Clause, which also gives Congress the power to enact statutes: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

I'm all for copyright and paying Authors and creators their due, but DRM violates the spirit of copyright because it has no time limitation.

If DRM expired in Author's life span + 99 years then I'm ok with it, but it technologically impossible. Therefore it violates the principal of public domain and the constitutions authors goal of seeing that authors get their due, but society and culture benefit from their works.

When you throw DRM into the equation it removes this part of the bargain. If someone violates your intellectual property... Then take them to court in accordance to the law. DRM simply takes the law and culture into their own hands and give nothing back to society.

This is the real problem with DRM.

All we can do now is hope our ancestors can legally and have the technical means to remove copyrights in a century or two with public domain works.

On a side note, DRM also restricts independent artists and authors who are locked out of certain medium devices without being having their material approved by some central source. Luckily, most devices today still allow content creation using non-signed material.

Otherwise, we'd have centralized groups telling who is going to get their DRM certificate and who is denied based on if their content is approved or not.

Re:music in perspective

[Kjella]

I say, put up or shut up. If you don't like what the RIAA does, if you think labels only offer music that sucks, if DVDs are overpriced or you don't like the "new release-newer release with extras" cycle, don't respond by taking their product on your own terms. That just says that you do indeed value that product and are willing to pay for it, just not in upfront cash - you are confirming the demand for the product.

I don't know about you, but in my case it's that I only want to pay in upfront cash. I don't want to hit any region codes (I've got DVDs from three regions now and not going back), I don't want any unskippable ads, I don't want to buy a new monitor because my perfectly capable one doesn't support HDCP, I want to put them on my HTPC, I don't want to buy a new if it gets scratched (it's a 10 cent disk with a 10 dollar movie - it's like finding out you can't replace wear parts on your car). I want to be able to put in a CD and burn an MP3 CD for use in my car, or copy to my MP3 player.

I want to buy a copy that I can then watch the way I want, no matter what format or medium or playback device I choose to use including making fair use copies to achieve that. My copy is mine and I can view it, lend it, sell it or whatever else I choose to do with it as long as all fair use copies go with it or is destroyed. That right is not contingent on any activation, authorization, transfer or revocation service from the copyright holder, it is inherent and inalienably stored in my copy. That I can't make copies for sale, public performance and so on is fair enough.

You might of course say that is unreasonable and that I have no right to dictate what terms they should sell copies under, even though they affect my use of it in ways that has nothing do to with the copyright holder's law, but you are wrong. Courts have upheld rights that the copyright holder doesn't want to grant, it is not an absolute right. The fact that everything is now licensed, not sold is another symptom of this disease, in which they both legally and technologically go into my living room and tell me what I can and can't do.

People "confirm demand" because they are demand. And I will get my supply from those who provide the superior product. In that sense, it seems awfully stupid make your product artificially inferior, but what do I know. I'm only a consumer.

Re:What Organization?

[SatanicPuppy]

eMusic is a bad example; the RIAA used to throw out "up and coming" acts on wide release samplers on tape, and later cd. This is just more of the same. If any of those acts should actually become popular, they'll remove the non-DRM distribution.

The point is not the format. The point is the control of distribution and the perishable nature of the media. They've come to depend on contant obsolesence as a part of their revenue stream, and now that's pretty much shot. They depended on CD sales continuing to increase, but evidence suggests than they've peaked for good, due to the amount of DRM they put on CDs these days, and the prevalence of mp3 players as one of the primary music devices.