Slashdot Mirror
The 10 "Inconvienient Truths" of File Sharing
54mc writes "The IFPI, an international recording industry organization, has released a list of Ten "Inconvenient Truths" of file sharing. Though the group has a vested interest, it's still an interesting read as it tears apart some of the most common arguments in favor of file sharing. Ars Technica follows up with a more thorough explanation of some of the points. 'Point five is an attempt to turn the "innovation" argument on its head. For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and "manufactured" celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away. And then there's point seven, which isn't an "inconvenient truth" at all but more of a rant against those who prefer giving copyright holders less than absolute control over reproduction rights. An "anti-copyright movement" does exist, but most of the critical voices in the debate recognize the value of copyright--and actually produce copyrighted works themselves (Lawrence Lessig, etc.).'"
It would actually be nice to see actual numbers of sales and correlation between Newer and unknown bands becoming popular due to file sharing. The people actually cursing copyright infringements are usually those who are already millionaires. The rest know they had become famous because of it, and they can rely on concert sales (the real skill) for income.
I'm not for ALL filesharing for music, but rather using it for recognition and buying albums to support their cause.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Copyright infringement, however terrible it may be, does not deserve to be placed on the same level as the climate change problem. These "truths" may be inconvenient to them, but they are hardly a global crisis.
See items 5 and 10 (paraphrased here): File sharing forces record companies to devote resources to big-name marketing vehicles rather than "artists" [item 5]; You won't find new music through file-sharing because it's mostly "popular music" [item 10]. It sounds to me as though they're playing into the hands of the infringers, then, by continuing to produce and promote exactly those things that are the bread and butter of their nemeses.
However, I will concede that point 3 is correct. In fact, I purchased a bootleg Britney Spears CD from a poorly-disguised gentleman calling himself Mr. "Lin-Baden" last week.
Trust not a man who's rich in flax / His morals may be sadly lax
Pay a fixed rate per month. I'm not sure how much this should be, but not a huge amount. Have iTunes (or whatever) record a play count of each track each month. At the end of the month, the money should be divided amongst that artists I listen to (assuming any are still alive), with a percentage determined according to the play count. If I don't upload a play count, then it should be distributed amongst the most popular artists of the month (for the privacy nuts), or according to my history (if I have one). In exchange for this, I want to be allowed to listen to any music that has been created.
This system would reward artists who create pieces which I want to listen to again and again. People who release an album that people buy, listen to once, and then decided they didn't like would get hardly any money. People who make music that finds its way into a lot of peoples default playlists would make more. I would be able to copy music that I liked to my friends, and if they listened to it then it would benefit the artists.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Interesting point. However, what your point lacks is quantity/quality. If it's worth money, how much is it worth? Pirating isn't being done by the masses to give the F-You to the record company and "the man" just because they are a big company, but because they do not believe the product/service they supply is not worth the value they're presenting it at.
Simply put, if pirates could buy brand a new movie on a standard DL-DVD without a box (toss it in a paper slip) for $4-$5, pirates would probably buy it oppose to copying. However, $15-$25 for a new DVD film is not worth it for most people. They probably already paid $10 to see it in the theater or can pay $2-4 to rent it and watch it as many times as they want in the week they have it.
A long time ago, I mentioned this 'dream' of mine. Big box retails (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc) getting a high quality DVD burning machine. You walk up to the counter, ask the person for the film you want, they'll punch in the movie id into their computer and the machine plops out a fresh high-quality burned DVD with sticker art. The clerk tosses the DVD into a paper slip and charges you $4. Maybe you rested a DVD case, and he charges you an extra $2 and prints out the DVD case insert, pulls a plastic DVD case off the shelf and inserts the slip art.
The consumer walks out the door with a $6 DVD, the store doesn't need to bother about inventory space, besides the machine and computer containing the DVD image catalog. Movie houses don't need to spend the time and money running DVD making machines, paying truckers and shippers to drop it off at distribution centers, etc. All they do, is download it into their customers DVD Making machine computers on release day. They can even setup a distribution network (hello bit-torrent), so they only have to upload it into the central Big Box Store system and Big Box Store can be responsible for the band-width for uploading it into all it's stores.
The cost is still more than DIYers but low enough to entice those who might pirate to just buy instead. They don't have to go out and buy a stack of DVD media. They probably get better quality DVD since they're not compressing the image, or removing audio tracks to fit onto a non DL-DVD. They also get a nice fancy art-work sticker, instead of just scrawling the name on with a sharpie marker.
The only way to fight the pirates is to offer the service at the value that it's worth. I think that, in general, people feel the cost of watching a movie isn't what it use to be in a world where entertainment is at your finger tips anywhere you go, from portable video game players, to cell phones, to the internet.
Movie theaters are not the only place one can go to 'escape' reality, anymore. Since the prices continue to climb along with entertainment competition, it's only natural to see demand drop off. It goes for saying that I often won't see a film in the theater anymore (unless it's a blockbuster or I'm a fan) and even then, I make every effort to go the the cheaper matinée. It's now 'wait until DVD' because I can rent it for $1-3. The same philosophy probably goes to those who use to buy DVD's for their collection. However odd it is, that such a crime is fairly socially acceptable.
Cheers,
Fozzy
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
The ifpi news release is labeled "Music piracy - ten inconvenient truths". html
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070531
Either it has been relabeled or the discussion of file sharing was not directly addressed in the title.
That being said, it reads more like an opinion/rant rather than any piece of truth.
Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?
AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels. But psychoanalysis of their motivations can hardly be called "truth"
Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
How dare they make such a mean-spirited threat
Guess we'll have to look underground for our underground music.
ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Which ISPs? Will their helpdesk help me set up my p2p program so I can download some tunes?
The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Pontificating is actually big business these days. Bloggers, politicians, talking heads all do it.
However, this hardly counts as a truth. As mentioned elsewhere, it is more of a whine, or a rant.
Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure.
Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Most people have this idea that it might be wrong because of the paid ad campaigns but they don't really feel it is wrong or they would have stopped by now.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
Coding Blog
"Society" doesn't have any say in whether those things are wrong either. If something is wrong it remains wrong regardless of the majority opinion. In any event, it doesn't really matter. For all property-right violations the legitimacy of the punishment is inherent in the offence. A murderer cannot rationally argue against corporal punishment; a thief cannot rationally argue against being fined. Either the defendent must agree that the action was wrong, and thus deserves punishment, or they must claim that the action was right, and thus the punishment (being the same action) must also be right.
Subjective morality only becomes an issue when you attempt to criminalize things that are either victimless, or acceptable to those committing the "crime". Copyright violations fall in the latter category (or possibly both, depending on your point of view). Let the punishment fit the crime -- prohibit "pirates" from holding copyrights. See if they care.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat