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.).'"
(IANAL)
it is entirely possible that my actions are unfairly hurting the recording and/or motion picture industry. and i couldnt care less.
If I had a way to buy music online with no DRM and no credit card (I don't have one), on any platform (i.e. Linux), I would. But I don't. That said, I personally don't download illegally much anyways, because it eats up my connection. So I end up going to Best Buy, and buying CDs.
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 is theft.
first issue is that "file sharing" is not automatically the illegal sharing of copyright violated files. More credibility may be had if one uses "copyright violation" or "illegal file sharing" ... as I sit here torrenting a blizzard game patch and torrenting some linux packages I note that driving a car does not equal "hit and run". But then murk and word-fogging seem to be standard ops for people who equate copyright violation (civil) with piracy (mayhem, murder, etc).
11. Bands don't make real money from record sales, record companies make real money from record sales. Bands make real money from touring.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
1) PirateBay has ads. So what? So does Slashdot.
2) Previous Russian law allowed AllOfMP3. It no longer does. So?
3) Copying a CD from my friend doesn't (yet) count as terrorism, guys.
4) Very few people care about the label behind their music, pirated or not.
5) So the labels can't afford small artists - Good thing they don't actually need labels anymore!
6) That would break the law. File suit, if you actually believe such BS.
7) Boo-hoo, I don't generate tax revenue. Hear the violins?
8) "Bought Pirate Products" - Change the subject, much?
9) The law already disallows piracy. Most people just don't care.
10) I've discovered over half of the artists currently on my playlist via questionably-legal means.
Some random observations.
It's a very interesting how they managed to sneak in terrorists.
But I don't understand how counterfeit CDs and filesharing have to do with each other.
I don'g get number 4. Can anyone explain to me what the inconvenience is?
They left one out:
11) So all that justifies:
a) A legal vendetta against a disabled single mom, children, dead people, etc.
b) Treating out customers like criminals
c) Trying to extort money from and/or destroy any channel the industry does not
control (like Internet radio).
d) Bribing lawmakers to extend copyrights ad infinitum.
e) Attempting to eliminate the legal concept of 'fair use'.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I might give the music industry time of day if only it had arguements that made even a small bit of coherence. The "they are really stabbing you in the back" arguement is ridiculous.
... the list was actually 20 long, but they condensed. Here's the rest:
...
11. Illegal filesharing puts puppies in blenders.
12. Illegal filesharing makes the baby jeebus cry.
13. Illegal filesharing leads to people removing the tags from their mattres.
14. Illegal filesharing causes male-pattern baldness.
15. Illegal fileshreing can make you teh ghay.
16. Illegal filesharing can make you teh straight.
17. Illegal filesharing killed Chuck Norris.
18. Illegal filesahring fills the tubes.
19. Illegal filesharing caused Pangea to split.
20. Illegal filesharing makes international trade groups release incredibly stupid 'top ten' bullshit like this, only cementing people's desire to fileshare further.
Seriously. Fuck these people and their little top ten list
that was an incredibly thin piece of propaganda if I ever read one. They did not even try to explain truths about file sharing but only regurgitated the same old lines that you hear from the undereducated executives that talk to the media.
They ignore the inconvienent truths such as....
If the product was available in a form and at a price people were willing to pay, they would buy it.
Record companies are refusing to adopt new standards and ideas that people want. Mp3 players are things that people really really like. They also want to be able to play that song anywhere. DRM music files do not allow that so they either rip the sings or pirate them.
song trading has went on forever. Mix tapes, trading Records or CD's etc.. has happened as long as audio tape existed. I traded Reels with friends of albums. (reel to Reel tape, way before casettes.)
Most P2P file sharing is garbage. Most people are not happy with the quality of the music they download, the id3 tags are wrong, the music is ripped with a crappy ripper (itunes or Media player) etc....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them.
Copyright infringment may be illegal, but "illegal" is not the same thing as "wrong."
"We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
Reminds me of that spoof RIAA poster when you pirate mp3s you're downloading communism.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
If the MAFIAA provides a valuable service to you, and expects money in exchange, it seems reasonable that you should give them money. If they aren't providing a valueable service, then don't pirate their garbage. Jerks like you give the rest of us who oppose the current copyright regime a bad name.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
My personal response to those claims: 1. I'm sure their serving and bandwidth costs are pretty big. Anyone can host adverts on a popular site and make money. 3. This is irrelevant to online file sharing. Also, the unprovable claim that 'generic evildoers' may do something does not make it evil too. 5. No, I don't buy that. Record labels are out to make money on 'bankers', not trying to lose it on 'underground' artists. 10. When art is given away freely, good content tends to shine. I don't consider the others worth addressing, tbh.
I made this little video about what I know about record labels. I hope you like it.
HAD
93% of counterfeit CDs and DVDs comes from China? Funnily enough, I'm pretty certain 93% of all my stuff that isn't food comes from China.
1. It encourages the distribution of art. That is what music is -- art. It isn't a product that can be bought, marketed, packaged and sold (though some people would love to believe so). The band, well maybe they could be a product, but the music itself can never be.
2. It encourages innovation. While it might sound less than ideal from a public relations standpoint, file sharing encourages programmers and problem solvers to think of more interesting and innovative methods to circumvent the measures put in place, and it furthers the study of peer-to-peer technology. You went from Napster, to Kazaa, to bitTorrent, with massive leaps at each step.
3. It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain artists and one wants to know that they like the artist before they shell out the cash for a CD from Amazon or eBay. And lets face it, the radio stations will seldom, if ever, play bands like Screeching Weasel, Cara Dillon, Celtae, R.A.M.B.O., or even some fo the more popular people like Jann Arden or Sinead O'Conner and Sarah Brightman. In fact, case in point: Rage Against the Machine. I called a local radio station when they said, "ok, the lines are open, tell us what you want to hear, because this is a radio station powered by YOU!". I called and requested RATM, what did they say? "Oh, sorry, that is too hard for our listeners. I just said okay, and turned off the radio. Barely ever play it anymore.
4. It helps gain artist recognition and exposure. Had file sharing come along, how many of you might know who BoA or Ayumi Hamazaki are?
5.It forces artists to be more creative, and less like the Back Street Boys and Spice Girls. If everyone of the bands sound the same, it forces more people to look elsewhere for the music that fits their tastes.
6. It breaks the copyright holder's regime. I'm sorry, this is going to piss off a lot of individuals around here, since a lot of people pay lip service to the "benefiot" of copyright, but the system is fundamentally flawed. Ever since the Bono-act, the fact that you could "extend" an artificial monopoly is just plain WRONG.
7. It also helps bring artists that would have no exposure form the record labels to break into the mainstream (or at least get a few more listeners and feedback).
8. It exposes people to more than the drivel that comes off the radio today. I like to equate most music on the radio and that is being produced by the big labels as "dime store fiction". In other words, a waste of plastic. Now there is some music (in every genre) that isn't produced by the big name labels that is VERY good. This allows people not "in the know" about the "scene" to become exposed to it.
9. For the love of all that is HOLY, file sharing does not only mean music. Lots of stuff (that is public domain or otherwise free) is distributed via filesharing. Not to mention the amount of pr0n.
10. ??? & Profit! (sorry, I couldn't resist)
At least in the case of Lessig he's stated he is not anti-copyright, he is pro-copyright-reform.
so, in conclusion, dont care
I can't believe I kept reading past the "supports terrorism" Gowdinning, but I am curious about how they determined that "Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label". (well, I'm curious about how they came up with any of those "truths", but that's a different point)
For me, what label an album is released on is the major criterion in determining how it will be procured - surely I am not the only one?
sic transit gloria mundi
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps lecture; they always say that it takes risk to get ahead and that they're just reaping the benefit they earned from taking that risk. Sure, I don't think I've heard it directly from a recording industry executive, but the aversion to risk I see from people who say risk is how you get ahead makes me suspicious.
By giving people access to that den of thieves called the internet?
Enough asking for more laws. How much law does it take to stop them? We already have laws against it, and it's still widespread.
I'll have to take your word for it on P2P, though the internet as a whole seems to be a great place to find it. In any case, music stores aren't "hotbeds for discovering new music" either.
(IANAL)
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
that horrible movie that global warning is real and hurricanes are going to kill us all?
The reduced revenues are not a result of piracy at all. Also, record companies don't "take risks" when they sign artists, they take them for everything they are worth, and then spit the crumbs back.
No, it largely consists of people who believe the notion of copyright & intellectual property is morally wrong.
What the fuck?
Oh boy, if this isn't a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one!
And to think I squandered my mod points this morning.
More Twoson than Cupertino
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Aren't these counter to each other?
Layne
12. Record companies aren't interested in bands anyway. They're more interested in "performers" who can't write their own music, can't play any instruments, and can't sing without the help of electronic pitch-correcting aids.
For the "questions", RTFA.
... 1990? Earlier? Don't remember, look it up), this is certainly the reason why you refuse to support new artists and instead go for castbands. Anyone who believes that might want to take up my offer of a nice bridge with a perfect view on L.A.
1. Besides the obvious "so?" answer, they, too, gotta pay their ISPs. Given the traffic they got, that bill could be a tad bit more than the average person can earn with honest work (for the IFPI, this is usually less than 3000 bucks a month).
2. AOMP3 has a license from the Russian equivalent. Care to tell me why globalisation is only good if it works for the company and against the customer?
3. I don't respond to arguments based on terrorism or child porn. They get old and are usually based on thin air. Like in this case. Care to show me ANY kind of proof (or at least a forged statistic) where Ozzy has been buying his AKs with money he got from selling bootlegs?
4. A quite blatant generalisation. Fact: It's often impossible to get a "honest" version of some out of print indie song. Many would buy it, if they could. Though, if you take a look through the various "old school" musicians who took their time to build up a support base, you'll see that their CDs sell quite well, often despite (or maybe because?) they refuse to use DRM or other crippling means, despite their fans being able to get the material easily through P2P means. Yet still, they buy the song because they want to show the artist their support. Check album sales for reference.
I can understand, though, that it's hard to sell some overhyped crap of a noname that you'll drop the next month.
5. Yes, and since the internet has been your bane since the New Kids on the Block (that was in
6. Car ads praise the maneuverability and speed of their cars, are they now liable for bank robberies and their cars being used for getaways? Phone services offer pre-paid phones where you don't have to go through the hassle of filling out forms, are they now liable for those phones being used in kidnapping calls? And don't make me start about guns.
7. The copyright world doesn't either. It outsources jobs to sweatshops and siphons money off our youth. With the difference, that they DO know how the commercial world runs. Unfortunately, though, they know little about art.
8. No, it usually is caused by people not wanting getting their computer infested with spyware or other unwanted "goodies", or that the content simply doesn't work on their system because the industry fails to conform with a standard, and so they have to resort to other means to get to use what they bought. Not buying because one is not able to afford the content is rarely if ever a reason. Maybe ignoring students.
9. Most people realized that it's near impossible to navigate the copyright laws and that they're guilty of breaking a law anyway if they don't live like a hermit. So many thought, why bother trying? More laws will only make this effect worse.
10. Actually P2P software is a tool. I use it to get (and spread) new versions of Linux. MMORPGs spread their updates through them. Others find music in it, decide that it's good and go buy the CD. And of course there are those that don't discriminate and download simply everything there is, hunting and gathering is a strong impulse in the human. Generally, though, P2P tools are simply that, a tool. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad, it depends on the person using it. Like the cars, the phones or the guns.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But #5: 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.
Are they still promoting the fallacy that every copy equals a lost sale?
I do believe they are losing money, but nearly so much as they say. I think we all know this to be true. I also think that there is going to have to be some acceptable level, or the restrictions will be so severe as to only hamper legitimate use.
Now, you'll look at that last sentence and laugh, because we're already there. But what the industry is seeing is only the start of the giant backlash against treating honest customers like criminals. I guess these things will happen in cycles, as the off-disk copy protection schemes that software companies used in the late 80s caused them a lot more grief than it saved them; yet here we are again, with MS leading the way.
There's already been a backlash in modern music technology. A few years ago you might buy, say, a Sony digital music player only to then realize it wouldn't play your music, as such. The backlash worked, and now most music players are quite open to unencumbered formats. Record companies are hesitating to use on disc copy protection.
They can say what they want, but it's their own draconian approaches that are making it more equitable for consumers to copy music illegally; why should I pay for an encumbered version of a song when I can get an unencumbered version for "free?"
And #9: 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 also know it's against traffic code to speed, but they do it anyway because the speed limits are too low specifically to help governments generate more revenue. When the feds lifted the 55MPH limit (or when they were forced to, anyway), traffic fatalities went DOWN because people were able to drive at speeds they were more comfortable with.
If the music industry takes a freaking chill pill, continues to take legal action against illegal copying, but refrains from draconian measures that prevent honest buyers from using the music as they see fit, sales will improve, IMO.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
3) Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
8) 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.
if you are buying a hard copy, it isnt file "sharing"...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Is that the only way to stop global warming is to dramatically increase the number of pirates. Were it not for these valiant File Sharing buccaneers, we'd already be hip deep in the Ocean. Who are we to deny them their religious freedoms under the 1st Amendment? The recording industry is not only areligious, but also anti-Constitution.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
#5 was my fave:
"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. "
Think about that a sec. The suggestion is that they put a certain amount of their revenue toward sure things, and a certain amount toward high-risk, high reward speculation. This is the right way to invest.
But you don't change the % devoted to each kind of investment based on the size of the portfolio, do you?
Yes, the "amount" would increase, but the overall inclination (which, I think, is *heavily toward boring, homogenous revamps of previous successes) doesn't.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The "labels" use the law to justify their monopoly by contractually forcing the "artists" into exclusive source distribution deals and assigning all their rights over to the Label. The Artist is the only valid monopoly that should exist, and without question they should be paid the greater sum of what money is collected for their works. The distribution channel should not be under an exclusive distribution contract so that the market forces can reward the artist with the "value" that the customers place on their works. If I like an artist then they should be paid well, not the Mafia cartel of Labels. Forget about file sharing for a moment, the Artists just need to get out from under the Draconian distribution control of the labels since that expense is no longer justified given the new distribution models that now exist. If the Labels want to do some "marketing" for the Artist thats fine, but they should not be in control of the distribution channels anymore.
And what's the record company's reason for working with them in the first place? Oh yeah ...
Forest? Nah, I just see a bunch of trees.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Do you really think that artists make music from recordings?
Intellectual Property isn't. It's a fiction perpetrated on society by those who've found the gravy train of leeching off the backs of those who create or do actual work. It really is something for nothing as it's currently advertised and is supporting a whole legion of parasites. Here's more news - most of the stuff called intellectual property isn't worth much. That last episode of Battlestar Galactica - not worth much in the grand scheme of things. If there were no Battlestar Galactica we'd all get on just fine. I don't need my rights as an individual human being subverted in order to support a byzantine copyright profit scam. I don't need extra laws to ensure that I pay my dues for some people to watch a remake of a story that was itself copped from ancient mythology (now with more CGI and super soap opera yet "gritty" plolt/dialog!). I'll live just fine without mass produced media if it gains me my rights back, thank you very much - and I've done so to some extent for a while now as I 1)do not illegally copy material and thus do not partake of it 3)pay for material not associated with major copyright scamming organizations whenever I can find any that I find appealing.
The underlying, unquestioned foundation of this whole ridiculous system is the idiotic concept that entities are entitled to make money by selling copies of something, regardless of the cost of creating the copies. In this day and age it's ludicrous frankly, and has only gained traction due to a brief period of time when making copies was possible but also costly. Prior to that time, copies were not really available. At this point in time copies are virtually cost free. The natural course of things would be to give up monetizing the act of copying and distributing copies and direct funds back into the hands of those who actually produce works worth copying. Instead these vested interests who fundamentally do nothing productive and get paid tons to do said nothing have taken offense at the idea that there's no need for us to support their obscene life styles and profits anymore. And who can blame them when they've had it so good for these past few decades? And I'm not talking about just the guys at the top here. I'm talking about every PA, bean counter and lawyer having anything to do with the entertainment industry. The entire bloated construct is anathema to true creativity at this point, and definitely anathema to Free culture and society.
Here's an inconvenient truth - if our current corrupt "intellectual property" scam had been in place at the time some guy invented the wheel or fire or language (yeah oversimplification, deal with it), humanity as a whole would be worse off. Imagine paying a "wheel tax" or "fire licensing fee" every time you wanted to drive a car or cook a meal since the dawn of history. Yet that's what these jackals would have us do now.
In short, to those who propagate the "intellectual property" scam - my sentiments are fuck off and die. And that's an inconvenient truth.
Thanks.
"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."
Ah yes, much like our movie industry which produces mostly art films and not reel after reel of trashy thrillers, soulless action films and toilet-humor comedy.
"Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money."
Perfectly rational sounding to me. Definitely no fear-mongering here.
Blaming terrorism and the decline of western culture on file sharing. Does this strike anyone as a new low?
You saved me my C&P, and now to continue with responding to the 10.
1. I agree to some degree. Music isn't really "free", but then again, I do not know how much money PB is making off of advertisements, for all I know they are breaking even, which doesn't sound as bad as making huge loads of profit by flogging your artists to death and releasing "greatest hits" albums after you've released the band. (Look at Reel Big Fish as a recent example.)
2. Did anyone ever actually believe AllofMP3.com was 100% legal? As for the legal action, I believe that was the result of some level of pressure from the US, who seem pretty deep in the pockets of the RIAA.
3. Organized crime has made money off of liquor, tobacco, and illegal drugs to just name a few. In the end, they were usually reduced or stopped by de-criminalizing these items or making them sufficiently cheaper that the market would support them. As for terrorists, I do not buy it. I buy the "buying drugs" supports terrorism more, since I do know they grow poppy in a few countries where terrorism has been said to "breed".
4. Lie! Every indie CD I have wanted I have bought. Now that RBF is indie again and so is Bad Religion this means them. Indie labels == Purchase, RIAA Labels != Purchase (or purchased used). I refuse to believe I am the only person with this level of commitment.
5. Bullshit! You've been manufacturing bands since the 1950s. There have been a few "TV Bands" (the Monkees and the Partridge Family) before I was ever born! You guys have never played a huge role in "underground" artists. When you do, it is only for a short while when their music is popular. Look at the swing-revival and third-wave ska. You picked up these little bands, used them until their music was no longer "popular" and then dumped them.
6. If this were true, the RIAA would have sued the shit out of ISPs already. Or are the large telecoms and cable companies the only people the RIAA is afraid of? Of course, it is a big step up from picking on the handicapped, elderly, under-privileged, students, etc.
7. Like Ars said, this is a low blow that screams of name calling. Anti-copyright is not necessarily total abolishment, but it is about proper fair use protections and reasonable copyright periods. Not periods that mean items will be controlled for decades (or bordering on centuries). This short of closed system prevent items important for artistic or historical purposes from being released and viewed. (The issue with the presidential debates comes to mind.)
8. Yeah, well how many people in China who are in poverty can afford a computer? Why not quote a survey from the US or Europe? Or is it too convenient to pick one that will obviously agree with you. I think these numbers might be a bit different in these areas where I suspect computer proliferation through the classes is considerably greater.
9. Somehow I do not buy a survey from an anti-piracy group. Also, how many children were surveyed, since I bet they are some of the largest violators. I also think there is some degree of apathy when you consider even some of the richer pirates probably make nowhere near as much as the big RIAA studios or popular artists.
10. Do they have any stats to support this? How do you know person X didn't hear what was deemed "popular"? I hardly ever listen to any radio other then talk and sports radio.
Should I be surprised a music industry group took shots at "piracy"? No. Should I be shocked they are spreading their own level of FUD? No. Do they realize this sort of thing hurts them more then it helps? Obviously not. Congratulations for just not getting it, once more.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
1. 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.
Yes. We know. We can tell because there are ads there.
2. 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.
This is more of an inconvenient mistruth. i.e. it's technically true but highly misleading. AllOfmp3 had the money availalbe to rights holders. The rights holders refused. "Facing criminal proceedings" is very weaselly. It doesn't mean they're guilty. Reputable copyright maintaining companies such as Microsoft and Sony have also faced criminal proceedings. MS were found guilty. Sony settled over the rootkit fiasco, I believe.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
This has nothing to do with file swapping. There is considerably less sympathy for commercial pirates.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
And we don't care that we don't care.
5. 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.
No it fucking doesn't! That's a filthy lie and they know it. The finances don;t work like that. It's not about money recieved it's about return on investment expected.
6. 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.
Ehhmmm... They provide a network connection. Are we ghoing to charge the labels with selling CDs to pirates?
7. 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.
The FSF is generally considered part of the "anti-copyright movement". Free software creates a lot of jobs. 8. 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.
No. It's caused by a general ambivalence about the rights of considerably wealthier foreigners.
9. 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.
More weasel words. What does "wrong" mean in this context? Most people know it's illegal. They form their own opinions on the ethics of it. Some people evidently consider it a greater "wrong" to spend money on stuff they don't have to.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Wow. An actual truth. What went wrong there?
A friend of mine who works in the game industry and I always talk about this issue. Sometimes I feel very sold on the whole "screw 'em" to the super mega corporations arguement, but I also feel like there are so many facets to this issue. I feel like at this time, no one fully understands it, where it is going, and what we will do about it (if anything even CAN be done). It's an exciting time to be alive, one thing is for certain, that things already have changed a lot in our lifetimes and will change dramatically still before we come out of this strange transition period.
I'm going to take a guess, as to the REAL reason people pirate music, they are just like me. Music costs too much. Yes I *would* pay for music if it cost the amount I'm willing to pay for it. Which happen to be the same prices allofmp3 sell for. Why would I buy from allofmp3 when I can get it from some P2P for free? Because the amount of time wasted on P2P was worth more to me than the prices on allofmp3. Pandora's box has been opened, the only way for the RIAA to survive is compete or die. They have to lower the artificial pricing on their music, and look for bulk sales. I.e. let itunes sell non-drm mp3 format at a quarter of the price or less.
If you'd called my favorite station asking them to play Garth Brooks, I'd hope they'd refuse. If *I* call the country station and ask for Switchfoot, I wouldn't be upset to be refused. I'd use those fancy buttons to switch to an appropriate station.
Now, if you'd scanned through every station trying to find one that would play some Cranberries, and all you could find was one "Top 40" station, seven country stations, two with talk radio, five "urban", and NPR, none of which would play it, *that* would be a legitimate reason to claim the radio does not serve your tastes. I have a set of six stations in my main set, with two more a couple buttons adjacent. Between all of them, I can approximate a good station closely enough that I haven't really felt the need to get an iPod or whatever. On the other hand, if I were stuck in Podunk, West Tennucky, I'd certainly be investigating other avenues of finding music.
No.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Anything referred to as "an inconvenient truth" automatically sets my BS meter going. This list of "truths" is pure PR bullcrap.
1. 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. This is the same industry who argues that listening to the radio is free, but makes millions if not billions of dollars on radio advertising. They run commercials in my market talking about how radio is and should continue to be free, and to please patronize the businesses being advertised, because YOU WOULDN'T WANT US TO START CHARGING YOU NOW, WOULD YOU??
2. 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. Er ... so? What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money. This one's really pathetic. Playing the terrorism card? That's just the bullshit cherry on the bullshit sundae. The point's been made already but it bears repeating: what does the sale of bootleg CDs have to do with file sharing on the internet? Furthermore, SOME TERRORISTS have used BANKS to launder their money. Guess we should all get rid of our savings and checking accounts, cause *gasp* we might be supporting terrorism!!! This kind of argument has no credibility because the whole "ohnoes terrorism!" argument has been overused so much that it no longer has any weight .. not even when it should be considered seriously.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label. Loaded language much? This list is replete with very badly biased language. Let me rephrase it: 4. People who share music digitally don't care what labels the songs they trade are. And all that is is a boo-hoo for the record industry. No, we don't particularly care about labels. We care about music. DEAL WITH IT.
5. 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. HAHAHA! Ohh, so THAT'S what they did with all the obscene profits they made from the illegal overpricing of CDs all those years. They invested them in REAL TALENT! OMG where do I sign up to let them gouge me some more?
6. 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. Again, spin city supreme. ISP often advertise music as a benefit, and then let their users use them as they see fit. I fail to see how this is an argument against me wanting to share digital music with my friends and family. Try again.
7. 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. Very few political movements create jobs, exports, tax revenues or economic growth. They exist to fight to enact change in laws or government. "Pontificating". "about which they know little". This is an ad hominem attack on people they disagree with, nothing more.
8. 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. Err, real piracy is caused by criminals who attack ships at sea, pillage, rape and murder victims (or sell them on the slave market), and this is a product of pure criminal greed and amorality. What, you meant file sharing? Oh, well yes, this is correct. People do not share music because they can't AFFORD it. They do it because it is FAIR USE and, if they're doing it on p
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
1. 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.
Red herring. A particular website making money off of file sharing is not an argument against file sharing and more than one record company screwing over one artist is an argument against record companies.
2. 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.
See #1. Also, has nothing to do with file sharing.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Red herring. Again, this has nothing to do with file sharing.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
False on it's face - some certainly do. But even if you accept this as true, again, has nothing to do with whether file sharing is 'good' or not, just that it affects major and independent label works the same.
5. 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.
This is a lie. If the average return on investment for bringing 'underground' artists to market is the same or better than the average return on 'bankers', then record companies will make that investment. To argue otherwise is to state that record companies are financially stupid, and would choose to invest their money in areas with a lower return, which clearly they are not.
Also, this argument is based on a misunderstanding of what an 'underground' artist is. An 'underground' artist is just one that hasn't had a record company publicize the crap out of them YET. I remember when Coldplay was an underground artist, for example.
6. 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.
Seems like file sharing benefits ISPs.
7. 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.
If #6 is true, then #7 must be false - file sharing creates at least ISP economic growth. It apparently also drives the continued creation of high-bandwidth internet connections. Probably not as much as porn though.
Further, the record companies don't create jobs, exports, tax revenues, or economic growth either. You could wipe them off the face of the planet, make them illegal, and just have artists sell their music online, and let consumers burn CDs for anyone who doesn't have an internet connection, and we'd have just as much music, the artists would have just as much money (maybe not the SAME artists, but artists none-the-less) and consumers would have more money to spend on other things, creating more jobs.
8. 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.
People who can not afford CD players do not buy pirated CDs. Check. People who can get a song on their computer for free do not bother to travel to a record store to pay for it. Check.
9. 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.
Sharing copyrighted songs is illegal. People share them anyway. Therefore, we must make sharing songs illegal so that people will stop sharing them?
Huh?
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that
paintball
*Sob* ... *Sniff* ... We have done them so unjust. Duh poor little media giants. So sad. I'm so sorry. Don't you guys feel really bad now too?
... no, wait, that wouldn't work, would it? *Da-Dum-Crash*
Ok, let's cut the crap.
Nobody doubt's that P2P filesharing is a grey-to-black area and could be solved (legally at least) by releasing a sane law that takes the internet and it's specialties into account. It would take me about 20 minutes to write one. So proactively placing a song into an anonymous, globally available P2P network is copyright infringement. Deal. If a teenie is caught doing it he should be punished (as in '40 hrs. social service' NOT as in '20 years on the electric chair'). Deal. NOBODY doubt's that copyright has it's purpose and that it should be defended legally.
But tell me: Why in hell haven't I ever downloaded a song of a P2P network since I've got a Mac and iTunes? Why don't I even give a flying f*ck about Apples Fairplay DRM? Because it's so easy. And because Fairplay has *never* gotten in my way. Hello people? I haven't reached the borders of Fairplay! I couldn't care less. You could LEAVE IT AWAY and I wouldn't even notice. Why isn't there a perfectly legal version of AllOfMP3 gaining revenue from adds? (not that I've ever used it). How about using radio waves to stream music to everybody who buys a reviever and gain revenue from ads and stuff
As someone here on slashdot said: The media industry couldn't innovate their way out of a paper bag. They have to be held at gunpoint to get with the programm. It allways has been that way. Offer proper services and your problem will go away. Meanwhile keep putting grannies into jail for a bazillion years and magnatune.com will grow larger by the week because of it. The best way to lose your customers is to sue them. No, my friends, Steve Jobs got it just right. It will only take another 10 years for the rest to catch the drift.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
11. Bands don't make real money from record sales, record companies make real money from record sales. Bands make real money from touring.
So, if you really want to inspire some people that don't always work together (just throwing a dart, here... let's say, The Chieftains along with Van Morrison) to do something that you can enjoy, you've got to convince them to go on tour together? I'm personally very happy when people that will NEVER have their lives lined up right to tour together nevertheless put up the money and time to work together in the studio and record some interesting work. They have no means whatsoever to pay for those efforts (and all of the overhead of travel, post-production, studio personnel, etc) unless they can sell the work to the audience for whom it's intended. Much great music would never happen if those circumstances couldn't be arranged and paid for. Sales of the recording is how that happens.
And... let's not forget that this isn't just about some band. Should Pixar be out "performing" the movies that it takes hundreds of people years to make, just so they don't have to fret about someone in Russia making advertising money off of setting up pirated downloads? You're right, I'm sure. For some people, their movies might indeed seem better performed live in a bar.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The "recording industry" is an anachronism. Bands can (and do) record, mix and publish their own music. They still need to get airplay and concert dates, though. The web (and inexpensive Asian disk manufacturers) has allowed them to bypass the traditional record companies, should they desire to do so.
Predictably, the "media" companies are attempting to resist this change in the balance of power by making an issue of just about anything that erodes their market share. Thus, the increased interest in DRM and file sharing.
Rather than argue that point, I'll just note that the issue is what happens when no one makes money from recordings. (See, I can use italic tags, too.)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
I thought we were talking about file sharing?
Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
You can read minds?
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.
Bullshit. Copyright infringement does not change the relative ROI figures. Therefore, it does not have an impact on the ratio in which money is invested in high-risk/high-reward contracts versus low-risk/low-reward contracts. It may reduce the total amount of money, but it does not change the percentage allocation of that money (at least not for a rational firm).
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.
Facilitate it? So do Intel and Microsoft. So does oxygen - think about it - if people couldn't breathe, they wouldn't be alive to infringe copyright. If facilitation is the problem, go after the auto manufacturers - they facilitate drunk driving.
The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth
False. The movement does create jobs for lots of people. Mostly for the media, lobbyists, and fake study publishers.
Aside from the movement, reduced copyright would also create jobs, exports, and tax revenues - from cover bands, cover albums, music compilations, derivative works, etc. The unfortunate fact is we have no idea how many jobs it would create nor how many would be lost nor how the redistribution of wealth would affect society. It is far too radically different an economic system from anything that has existed in the past fifty years to be predicted.
it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
90% of everything is shit. Some of us, however, studied economics in college.
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.
This study cannot be accurate. iTunes just started selling major artist songs online without DRM within the past week. There is not remotely sufficient data yet to predict the behavior of consumers in a market that allows them to buy what they want. Making predictions about behavior when the legal options have been so limited and so limiting until this past week (and remain so for most labels and some operating systems) is meaningless.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Performers can dance. Concertgoers don't want to go to concerts where the band sits down and plays music. They want them to dance - at least the lead vocalist.
No, I don't understand it.
A new regime could enable artists who can't dance to make money as an artist. I listen to a whole lot more recorded music or local bar bands than I go to concerts.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ben Franklin was a book pirate, he re-printed english books without premission when he was a publisher. Now china is similarly invovled in infinging activity. I wonder if the reasons are not much the same. In the colonial preiod getting "legal" english books was difficult, slow and expensive. You generally had to order and wait months for shipping. The pirated copy was likely to be in the local book store. Now a legal copy of things from overseas might be avilable if you look, but it will be expenisive and slow compaired to the illegal copy. This puts people in content consuming nations at a bigger disavantage. So it is a way to correct for the market falure created by the slow adaption to new markets and technology. In one case, the cononial market, in the other then international, internet based market.
because people's taste in art varies, a lot. Anything that has had enough effort put into it to be called 'art' is going to turn some people off. And it's just ever so much more profitable to sell 10 million boy band albums than 10 million albums from 20 or 30 thousand different artists. Economies of scale and what not.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Aren't these counter to each other? Forget that, isn't point 10 not an actual point but a retarded circular logic spin?
"The most popular downloads are the most popular song" really? ya think?
You can't take the sky from me...
I couldn't get to it that way, but you can from here: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalin k/downloading_communism/
P2P file sharing networks need to develop methods of revenue generation that repays artists and producers, while at the same time allowing relatively free exchange of music for casual sharers.
Two questions for the Peanut Gallery:
1) What do you think the payment compliance rate would be if it were voluntary?
2) Would you pay per play? 2 cents? 5 cents? How about if there were a cap at a dollar?
I had a framework for doing this worked out but never did any of the market research.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1) Suing unwed mothers, children and the elderly makes you a terrorist. 2) How many songs are just I-IV-V, I,V etc. chord progressions with some attached phrases that go "I was born", "Hold On," "Without You," or "All I Want." etc. your all a bunch of plagiarists. 3) Manufactured bands have been around since before file sharing, the Monkees and Milli Vanilli come to mind. 4) Many artists have had huge hits followed by instant bankruptcy. Quit ripping off artists and you might gain some sympathy. 5) Most of those so-called "anti-copyright" people are really "anti-copyright-abuse", "anti-lobby-congress-to-change-the copyright-terms" people. Sonny Bono got his copyrights extended and personally profited from his bill introduced when he was in congress.
Isn't point 3 more than a little bit stupid? I mean, if "terrorists" are making money of bootlegs, and supporting that is immoral, than isn't the moral thing to do if you;re not sure if you're bying a bootleg or not to file-share? I mean, if PAYING for something is supporting terrorism, getting it for free sure can't be.
Everything and everyone is an aspect of Gd. So remember to show proper respect!
"Hey! The Monkees. They were a major influences on The Beatles." ;-)
Talking to the amorphous mass you like to imagine the putative `slashdot collective' to be does make you feel nice, I guess...
Congrats on your mastering the <em> tag.
But I may have gotten it wrong.
1. 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.
So? WebMD makes money advertising, too. It isn't the advertising model that piratebay exists to circumvent, so why does it matter? Plenty of web sites make money advertising while distributing things over the 'net.
2. 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.
So that one website is bad. Hardly an indictment of 'music-swapping' in general.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Not relevant to file sharing either.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
So what? Music companies don't care if the people that buy their music actually like it. What does that have to do with anything?
5. 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.
They weren't doing much of this before the advent of file sharing, not to mention that reduced revenues have not been proven to be caused entirely by file-sharing, anyway.
6. 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.
So this seems to be an argument against ISPs, not file-sharers.
7. 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.
Lots of movements fit that description. Let's get rid of all of them!
8. 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.
Poverty as a cause of file-sharing is not germane to a discussion of whether file-sharing is bad, and regardless of who brought it up it's a red herring. Theft is not caused by poverty either, and we still think it's bad. Charity isn't caused by poverty, and we think it's good.
9. 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.
I don't believe you. Many people may *think* it's wrong, but from all the discussions here and elsewhere, it is not a general consensus and pretending it is is trying to steal points.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
And, by the gerrymandering of this question, p2p networks are the only source of free music. Besides which, in my own experience, this is simply not true. You can find a ton of indy and unknown bands on p2p networks...just not if you're searching for the latest britney aguilerra track.
http://xkcd.com/386/
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
WHAAAAAAAAAA? Popular music is file-shared the most frequently?
Next you'll be telling me that the number 4,182,587,284 takes longer to write than the number 7, or that planets are harder to see around than paper clips.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Need more literate editors please. Zonk: L2Spell. Thanks.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Mods, crank the parent up to 6.
$8.95/mo web hosting
1. 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.
Yes, that's exactly how music creators ought to make money.
2. 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.
Yes, that's quite unfortunate.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Which would end if music were free.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
Indeed, that's the point, all music should be treated equally: free.
5. 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.
Just make all music free, and eliminate the uneven playing field.
6. 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.
So
7. 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.
Maybe jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth aren't all we care about in life?
8. 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.
Who believed that or used it in their argument? You have to be pretty wealthy to afford the devices to use pirated materials.
9. 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.
Think it is wrong, or know it is illegal?
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Surprise, surprise, popular music is popular. Shocking.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Inconvenient Fact from the List: Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Wow, it's a good thing we are fighing in Iraq. I'd hate to see people selling counterfit CDs on my street corner. What this has to do with file sharing is anyone's guess, but it is a terrible fact.
Imagine what would happen if there was universal, unencumbered network access. The price of CDs would collapse and the TERRORISTS would win. Or would they lose? I'm so confused.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
does this study show what the lower-income earners are doing? are they buying _legitmate_ releases? or nothing at all, because even that would cost a lot?
Why must every file sharing conversation be about music? (ok, because the *IA say they're getting robbed by file sharing of movies and music.) I was accused of music sharing at work when I tried to torrent Fedora Linux. Why can't we share that which we own or have permission to distribute?
:-)
The uneducated, unwashed masses the *IA cry to about "theft" are my main concern. P2P (and the Internet as a P2P conduit) should not suffer just because some industry exec can't explain why hard copy of music and movie is on the decline. We are in an information age and will not evolve past it if we continue to get caught up in information ownership. (What is so much of our DNA decoding owned by corporations?) At some point, profit from information has to be limited.
In their defense, I do feel for them. just a little.. I have to explain numbers all the time and come up with improvement plans for masters.. I mean.. managers. That's not to say I blame low numbers on "piracy" and the Internet.
Power to the Penguin!
1. Pirate Bay makes thousands off advertising. Ok.
CNN makes millions. Does that mean CNN is charging me for news? No.
Just because it's not a charity doesn't mean it isn't free to the user.
2. What does Allofmp3 have to do with file sharing?
Allofmp3 was a for-pay site; that's fundamentally distinct from file-sharing.
3. Who cares if organized criminals make money off selling pirated disks? File-sharing is defined by not paying for bits. If you're a file-sharer, you're not supporting terrorists. Unless, of course, the Pirate Bay are funding terrorism with their mind boggling 'thousands' of dollars of ad revenue.
4. Yes, file-sharers don't care about copyright, regardless of who holds it. That's not exactly an inconvenient truth - that's the core conceit.
5. Increased revenue from the CD boom back in the 90s didn't result in more 'underground' artists, so I don't see why anyone should be worried about less of them because of file-sharing.
6. Why is ISP advertisement of 'music' an incovenient truth for file-sharing? It sounds like an inconvenient truth for ISP advertising.
7. What anti-copyright movement? It's a file-sharing movement.
No-one's standing up for a pirate's right to make cash off a $2 bootleg of Hostel 2.
8. Black and grey markets are never really caused by poverty. They're caused by the primary market simply failing to meet consumers demands. As soon as an alternative to the $20 CD market existed, consumers flocked to it. That isn't a reflection on the populace being destitute. It's a reflection on the market offered by the multiply-convicted-of-anti-competitive-practices RIAA.
9. 'Wrong' is a curious word to use. Most people know file-sharing is against the law. But they say that it's 'wrong' the same way they say getting drunk or high or gambling or swearing or watching porn is 'wrong'. It being 'wrong' doesn't affect their behavior; they say that it's 'wrong' because society expects them to parrot back "it's wrong".
10. Honestly, this is the only 'inconvenient truth' that actually works. Vocal file-sharing proponents love to rail against major-label artists and 'hollywood' movies, all the while most file-sharers are trading almost exclusively major-label artists and hollywood movies. Frankly the vocal file-sharing proponents aren't moving the majority of shared files, so they aren't necessarily being hypocritical. But it is one of those truths that file-sharing proponents tend to gloss over.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
So, if you take music that cost you next to no effort and sell it for a profit, you are a terrorist? Oh my. Sometimes I wonder if there is anyone at the executive level at Sony/BMG/WarnerBrothers/DisneySoft who can carry a tune or who even listens to the music they sell. Do not equate the efforts of those who make music with those who profit from it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Your analogy is confusing.
11A. Above-the-line filmmakers (director, writer, actors) make their real money from box office attendance, not from DVDs. DVD piracy and digital downloads have a miniscule effect on theater attendance, since people buying movie tickets are mainly buying an excuse to get AWAY from their computers for a few hours :P.
11B. The hundreds of people that work on movies make their money from their weekly salary, and never see a penny more if the movie is popular. These people are paid regardless if the film is a work of art or paint-by-numbers dreck.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
For a second there I thought the IFPI might have some worthwhile points. Actually it was just a list of FUD, desperation and nonsense.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
I found out Faye Wong sang that Final Fantasy 8 song. After hearing that, I wasn't sure I wanted anymore US music afterwards. In fact I'll admit I was quite curious about what's on the "other side".
First, if you haven't, read this. http://negativland.com/albini.html
...
The artist is already fucked; at least I can pay to see them live, buy a t-shirt, buy their music directly from them (if their contract allows)
I don't deny that I'm a thief: I rob from the rich (record labels) and give to the poor (me). I'm a small time operator stealing from Thievery Incorporated.
The real difference between the record labels and I: they use the tools they have (money, laws, business acumen, contracts, monopoly of distribution, overly-restrictive copyright law) to fuck the artists and the consumers, and I use the tools I have (P2P, BitTorrent, FreeRip) to fuck the record labels.
I also dumpster dive (I've gotten some great computer equipment over the years this way), root through the rich people's garbage for functional but outdated appliances, and I would never return money I found lying around in the street (and would probably throw the wallet away too). Feel free to denounce me for the po' white trash scum I am.
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.
Who among the poor in China (or any other country, for that matter) can afford computers and broadband internet, or DVD players and televisions? Not counting the idiots who spend their welfare checks on electronics. But more importantly, sure, you'll get people who think $15-$18 is too much to pay for one or two good songs followed by 40 minutes of crap on a CD, but who is actually saying piracy is caused by poverty?
The hundreds of people that work on movies make their money from their weekly salary, and never see a penny more if the movie is popular. These people are paid regardless if the film is a work of art or paint-by-numbers dreck.
Oh, come ON! Do you really think that those people would HAVE a salaried job working in film production if the people who invest in the film (in order to make money) didn't put up the money, UP FRONT? If a production company can't get the cash flowing, NO ONE has a job in that company. Oh, and for what it's worth, people actually DO make bonuses when a production company's work does really well. Depends on the job, the company, the contract, and so on... but, having family in that business (who make salaries doing all of that beind-the-scenes stuff), I can assure you that being worth a damn and playing a good, regular role in that company's success can pay off quite well on occasion. If you just grind out crappy movies, it's an entirely different type of gig, which attracts and employs a much different grade of worker that, of course, doesn't see the more rewarding compensation because: they're not producing work of that type in the first place, or aren't energetic enough to get a gig with a company that does.
make their real money from box office attendance, not from DVDs
Speaking of companies like Pixar... that is most definitely NOT true. They make a lot of money in the theaters AND they make a lot of money in other distribution forms, as well. There are a lot of childrearing households with Toy Story DVDs that never come out of the disk changer.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
One problem with this plan that I see:
What happens to the music that I have listened to when I stop paying the monthly fee?
If I can still play all the songs that I have downloaded, then why not just pay a couple of months each year and download as much as my bandwidth will allow.
If I cannot play the songs after the fee is no longer paid, I would probably not use such a system.
Otherwise, I do like the idea of benefit tied to actual usage, not just downloads.
Like pi? Try 10,000 digits.
Since this was clearly a biased study that only focused on negative aspects of file sharing perhaps we should list a few positive aspects.
1)The music industry does not lose a dime when people download music they wouldn't have purchased anyway.
The music industry likes to make claims that if someone has say 1000 mp3's on their computer that they have "stolen" the store bought value of that music from them. Not true at all, since that person likely would never have purchased that much music otherwise. Additionally, since all they are taking is intellectual property, there is no loss of the money spent to manufacture and distribute the cd's. 1000 mp3's could be the equivalent of 500 albums, at 20 bucks a pop that's 10,000 bucks. I know of very few people that have ever spent that much on music, even before file sharing, but I do know of a lot of people that have thousands of songs on their computers.
2)Downloading music exposes artists to a much wider audience then they would have previously been available to.
This kind of goes in hand with the previous statement. Little joey may not have nearly enough money to purchase lots of cd's, but he can download music. Maybe he'll download a song that looks kind of interesting, enjoy it and end up going to a show. Or maybe he'll play it for his friends and they'll buy the album, or go to a show.
A few months ago, someone here unwittingly made what I think is one of the strongest arguments that piracy drives music to the least common denominator: look at Asia. Artists and labels can't expect to make money from recordings, so they generate an endless stream of teen-friendly clones who can make money from mall concerts.
What is wrong with mall concerts? Do you need to listen to popular music in order to feel good, or can you just find music that you like and listen to it despite the fact that most people have never heard of it? How can piracy possibly impact live concerts? Until we get high quality VR that's not even a remote possibility, and even when it is possible there will still be a market for people who would rather go see a musician in meatspace. That is actually the only real economic model for musicians, period. Everything else is artificial and subject to change .
Okay, Pirate Bay makes money from advertising. Personally, I find that a bit annoying, and I would love it if they were perfectly altruistic and high-minded. How is this an inconvenient truth about file sharing?
Ah, Russia... Great bastion of infinite tolerance and justice these days. Surely, the model for any political organisation anywhere. Like #1, I'm not sure what this proves? They sell MP3's. That isn't "file swapping."
Well, this certainly has nothing to do with file swapping.
That's an absurdly broad claim. I'll agree that not every file-sharer takes this into account, but they imply that none do, which is absurd.
Simply untrue, but admittedly a reasonable perspective, and the most reasonable point so far. Thoroughly debunking this claim would require more effort than a slashdot posting actually merits, but the recording industry really wasn't that interested in promoting diverse and new talent in the days before the internet started impacting their business. Look at the payola schemes. Look at the abusive contracts. If the record companies had more money available, they would buy more gold swimming pools.
There are perfectly legitimate sources of music online, so advertising that an Internet connection can be used to download music is perfectly reasonable. ISP's facilitate people having Internet Service. As near as I can tell, the recording industry means with this point that ISP's should either be outlawed, or music should be granted some sort of special legal status and ISP's should have to work for the music industry. Obviously, neither is reasonable, which is probably why they didn't just come out and say it.
Wait, I thought it made jobs for AllofMP3.com employees, Russian Prosecutors, Swedish Pirate Advertising Coordinators, and ISP's. People aren't allowed to pontificate? This point is a complete non-sequitor, given the previous points. It's also not at all obvious that if file swapping was eliminated, there would be more jobs or anything else. They don't even try to claim that there would be. It's a bit like claiming that the fact that I went jogging yesterday doesn't create jobs or exports. That doesn't make jogging bad.
Okay, now we are back to people *buying* things in a list that claims to be about file swapping, which is just confusing. Anyhow, counterpoint... How many of the Chinese super-poor have CD players? Co
I like their inability to differentiate the users of file-sharing services and the people who run it and make money on it. Good stuff!
2. 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.Well, since they're so concerned about filesharing, perhaps they should stick to argumenting against filesharing. As far as I know, AllOfMP3.com doesn't provide a filesharing service, but is an unlicensed store.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.If you download music, YOU SUPPORT TERRORISM!
4. Illegal file-sharers dont care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.That may be so, but that's just a statement. It says nothing about whether or not it is benificial or negative. Hence, this doesn't debunk anything.
5. 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.Yes, because underground artists are so prominent on major record lables. Give me a break. They'll chose bankers even if they're making tons of cash. The music is irrelevant to them. The business is relevant.
6. 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.Yes, and car manufacturers encourage speeding by stating the maximum speed their vehicles are capable of.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growthit largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.Forgetting the first point in the list, are we? Didn't they say that The Pirate Bay are raking in cash? In addition, they ignore simple principles like the incredible ammount of free publicity that is provided with filesharing. If it wasn't for illegal filesharing, I would never have learned about artists like Devin Townsend, Battles, Don Caballero, God is an Astronaut, Neurosis etc., and I would not have bought their music.
8. 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.Interesting fact, but alas, it has nothing to do with whether or not filesharing is bad.
9. 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.Oh my, what an inconvenient truth. Next they'll be telling us that people who smoke pot know it's illegal! Seriously. Law and morals are two completely different thing, and only inderectly influence eachother.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.That's funny. I swear I read that it was irrelevant whether or not music was from a major label(popular) or from an independant label(not quite so popular) in the third point in the list. In any case it doesn't matter. Just because there's more popular music being shared doesn't mean there isn't plenty of lesser known artists work being shared.
Actors, directors, producers, and the like are all payed based on the total revenue a movie makes. Whether the money comes from theaters vs retail sales doesn't factor in much, it's the bottom line number that sets the budget. Individual people may have bonuses based on box office sales, but the overall budget is based on box office profit + retail profit.
As for the people being paid salary, where do you think that money comes from? Again, the bottom line, box office profit + retail profit.
If you shrink either box office or retail profit, the resulting budget cuts will affect everyone involved. Do you really think retail sales don't affect the budgets of movies?
(Feel free to add merchandising and other misc revenue streams into the budget talks as you wish, it expands on my point)
I was 14 in december 1984, and I got a real job. Something in the area of US$ 6K/year. Bought my first computer that way (a Brasilian version of the TRS-CoCo) and I always had movie money. :-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
New music doesn't have to be in the majority for P2P to be a "hotbed" for discovering it; it only needs to be a higher percentage of music on P2P than through other existing sources.
I.e. if it makes up 1% of music a P2P networks, but only 0.1% of music on mainstream radio, then P2P appears much more effective.
and fairly too, I might add.
For the last several years, I have only bought music from artist-owned labels. I buy very few CD's (average maybe one every two years) from labels that do not seem to be artist-owned. I attend very few concerts. And I rarely see movies. In short, I go out of my way, and make sacrifices, in order to hurt those who I see as a problem.
Heck, there are times when I even avoid buying Sony electronics.
I do not share music unless allowed to do so (by law, the artist, whatever). I do this because I want to help create a market for the right kind of music, and really hurt the RIAA/MPAA where it counts. We need to work on building an open music community rather than hurting ourselves by fostering a dependance on those who would hurt us. That seems to me to be the electronic equivalent of stealing crack cocaine.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
He wasn't talking about a boycott. He was talking about doing the ethical thing.
"11A. Above-the-line filmmakers (director, writer, actors) make their real money from box office attendance, not from DVDs."
I am not sure why you said that. More and more deals include back end from DVD sales, and more and more films are making the bulk of their revenue from DVD rentals and sales. You've heard the joke about some movie releases simply being an advertisement for the DVD? There's a whole lot of truth in it.
"11B. The hundreds of people that work on movies make their money from their weekly salary, and never see a penny more if the movie is popular. These people are paid regardless if the film is a work of art or paint-by-numbers dreck."
Some are salaried; some are hired on a per-film basis. Whether they'll be paying the rent next year depends largely on how the industry does this year. You should know this: if the movie industry does great next year and the number of film productions doubles, you'll have a much better chance of making money. If the number is cut in half as film companies scale back their production schedules or move production offshore, you'll have a tougher time of it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
The real threat to the labels and the economic activity they're worshiping is not the "illegal" file sharing of yesterdays top 40 hits but the potential LEGAL file sharing of all of those works that should rightfully be in the public domain. Buddy Holly, Ben Hur, Elvis, Gone with the Wind, The Beatles, Pinochio, Led Zepplin and a whole mountain of entertainment that could easily replace much of what people might pay for.
That's the real threat. They want to eliminate the public domain so they don't have to compete with it.
Much of the content broadcast on cable (even premium channels like HBO) is stuff that should be free to copy right now if not for constant attempts by this industry to retroactively change the rules.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I am one of those people, and I have worked on both the high- and low-brow. The dumb movies usually attract the better people, because they pay better and are more stable -- a particular arthouse studio you would recognize that I worked for was always a little sketchy about paying on time and unpaid overtime, and many of the prestige marques, like Universal Focus, Fox Searchlight, etc. are happy to buy non-union and extremely low budget films that paid the technical people little to nothing, and then make hundreds of millions distributing them. You always hope you can land a huge movie that pays well AND is a work of art, but Clint only makes a movie once every couple years.
I'm not sure that's exactly how it works. The studios are loss leaders for their conglomerates -- the studios manufacture media platforms to which the larger corporations attach their products and services. The money flows because large corporations need movies to be made to act as flagships for their media products, which they do wether they are pirated or not. Movie studios don't make money, by themselves; that's why they were all bought up in the 1960s and 70s.
If you were to start a company, today, which did nothing but shoot films and release them into theaters, you would go bankrupt in 5 years, piracy or no. Movies just aren't economic in and of themselves, they have to be integrated into DVDs, marketing, books, and all that stuff.
Basically, I think I'm saying that motion pictures are just big ads for the DVD, if they make money, that's awesome and helps the marketing down the chain, but as advertisements, they're driven by numbers of eyeballs viewing, and not by tickets sold. In my universe, if I'm right, you could invite people to see a movie for free and have the DVDs on sale at a table at the exit, and if the movie were good, you'd make a profit.
Independent films are a different beast. Those occasionally hit it big and become vehicles for DVD sales, but often the producer is happy to make double or triple his investment by preselling the distribution to Polish distributors, French cable, Blockbuster bargain bin DVD, and all the other little markets independent films show on -- Roger Corman and a dozen imitators have perfected this over the last two decades. If he gets US distribution and BO, it's gravy.
Are we calling Pixar a "band" in this analogy or a "label," because in my understanding, the cast and crew is a "band," and the company is a "label." Pixar makes fine $$$ off of all of its movies in DVD, but these don't always filter down to the talent in the same way as box office does (the sharing of DVD and internet revenue is the common cause of the WGA and SAG strikes that seem to happen every few years). To respond to the point of the other respondent, above-the-line people don't get points out of the total sales of a film, all of the retail channels are kept separate in terms of their profit participation, and often these artists will only get royalties, or even less, particularly on purely art films made for no budget in the independent realm.
I should say, however, that none of this is even remotely related to the broader point of "Is it moral or ethical to download movies," which I positively reject. I love seeing movies in the theater, and buying my favorites on DVD. I ask you though, humbly, don't go around thinking you're rewarding an artist when you run your MasterCard through the POS terminal at MediaPlay.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Goes really to show that there aren't very many good arguments against file sharing, that that there is likely a digital freedom mole in the RIAA. Someone should have been fired over this pathetic attempt to justify their existence.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I notice that among these ten points are the ideas that p2p doesn't generate jobs or revenue or tax revenue, and yet this comes after claims that these services generate advertising dollars and money for terrorists. I might also remind people of Napster, which did all of these things before big media tried to shut them down. I notice the occasional, rhetorical comment, "it's their right to charge whatever they want, if you don't like it don't pay it." This is, in fact, false. If you want to impose ethical standards upon others, you do not begin by stating that your own ethical position is, "I can can charge whatever outrageous, unjustifiable price I want and screw anyone who doesn't like it." If that's your ethical position, regardless of how 'legal' it is, then my ethical position is, "well, actually, I can just take it all from you for free, shrug," and this point of view is every bit as ethical. Laws drafted largely by business lobbies are not inherently right or ethical, and are not the end-all of any argument. A case in point, one argument commonly used to support this brand of free market idiocy is that if someone wants to charge less, they can and we can then buy from them. This is crucial to the 'free market, what the market will bear', notion. And yet, when China recently tried to sell cheaper, but perfectly legal CDs in the US, the recording industry lobbied successfully to have the move made illegal under US trade law. In short, industries which happily exploit cheap labor in China have denied them the right to reap the rewards of that work from us, while also denying us the right to buy from a cheaper competitor. Add this to the manner in which artists and consumers all are treated by the recording industry and your ethical obligation, I think, actually reverses. You are, be you an ethical, socially minded person, obligated to engage in civil disobedience at this point. The laws that big media hide behind no longer protect the artist or the consumer, but only the industy heads, at the expense of the two aformmentioned entities as well as any potential retail competition. So your obligation, now, is actually to pirate media, even if you don't want to. The obviously dishonest and meaningless arguments in the list of ten are enough to show that an unscrupulous and greedy entity is ignoring every ethical social standard there is to directly attack the citizenry as regards their rights as people and consumers. It is ethically unforgivable to turn a blind eye to such behavior.
Are the big labels even relevant anymore?
With tech getting better, good quality recording is within reach of individuals.
Distribution is no problem, obviously, just give a copy to your local terrorist.
Which leaves.. fluff basically?
You are, of course, referring to the marginal cost of production, ignoring the costs of developing said movie in the first place. By your logic, people pay too much for virtually everything. The marginal cost of producing a brand new computer might be $50- but making the factories that can produce a $100 chip for $1 costs several million dollars, not to mention the salaries of the engineers who designed it and tested prototypes. If your argument is sound, one should be able to walk into a computer store, toss down $50, and walk off with a computer currently priced at $500, because that's the marginal cost of production. Technically the company you're stealing from isn't losing money, but that doesn't make it ethical.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
> Should Pixar be out "performing" the movies that it takes hundreds of
> people years to make, just so they don't have to fret about someone
> in Russia making advertising money off of setting up pirated downloads?
Certainly.
> Your analogy is confusing.
Not in the least. You are just easily confused.
Pixar and the rest of the MPAA cabal could use these little known performance
venues known as MOVIE THEATRES. Oddly enough, these films were originally
designed to be played in these MOVIE THEATRES rather than on some ipod or
even someone's 60" television.
It's even pay per view... the MPAA's wetdream.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Five (now four) entertainment corporations have STOLEN the public domain in the USA by infinitely extending the copyright period.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Movies these days could use some brutal budget cuts. Perhaps then they would get back to the practice of their craft rather than applying some bean counter's algorithm.
Hollywood today is like a hair band encouraged to excess spending 2 million dollars before the album is even pressed.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I thought that was the point I was trying to make, but I admit, I phrased it in the form of a snark and not a statement.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I call bullshit on this. It's not the same, and only liars and trolls will try to maintain otherwise. Nothing material has been stolen. No CD's taken from stores. Nothing that cost money to manufacture is taken or missing. No selling of counterfeits in the circumstances of this list. No stolen profits.
Even an immaterial sale is not proven stolen. That you would have bought this song at retail if you hadn't downloaded it first. That's another lie of the industry.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I don't understand what you are saying, and I don't think you do either. The MAFIAA either provides enough value to you to be worth paying them, or they don't provide enough value to be worth paying them. They only expect you to pay for their music if you 'aquire' it. The idiots I have a problem with are those who say "Their music is garbage, therefore I should be able to download it for free".
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
And considering what China shipped us recently to make pet food out of (at least, I hope they intended it for pet food only), this is something to be thankful for.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Ok, you may copy(!) my TV, and my DVDs. I don't have a gaming system, sorry. :-)
BTW, I'd like to have a copy of your copying device for physical items!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. What exactly is your point? The Pirate Bay provides a service and makes money off of advertising. How does that conflict with their supposed "...'free music' rhetoric."? In addition, I have found no statements from the piratebay promoting or otherwise stating that they have a "...anti-establishment 'free music' rhetoric." One might say that is implied with the nature of the service they imply, but that argument is weak at best. Not only that, but it does not answer the original question. 2. AllOfMp3.com is being sued and they are not legally licensed to sell copy's of music. All true and valid. But I really don't see why that was put in the article. 3. Yeah, I like word play too. By selling the music one illegally that in and of it self makes them a criminal. By having more than one person there is now a gang or a group. If that gang or group attempts to work in an efficient matter they are organized. Therefore if Bob and Alice decide to sell pirated music and they organize themselves, they are now a "Organized criminal gang". Selling CD's is not used to laundering money. Rather laundering money could be used in the selling of pirated material. If you were not aware laundering money is best known as a process to conceal where the money came from. The purpose is so that the methods used to generate the money appear to be genuine. Usually this may involve setting up a company where one can make fake transactions. These fake transactions then amount to the sum of the money generated illegitimately. Now, one can pay taxes on the money and have it appear as though it were generated through legitimate transactions. These terrorist groups you speak of? Care to back that up with some hard evidence and not just he said she said hearsay? Further more, an "Organized criminal gang", or a "terrorist group" could sell t-shirts to generate money. That does not mean selling t-shirts is morally wrong. 4. Not necessarily true, not necessarily false. I can just as easily say I don't pirate independent labels just as easily as I can say you do. 5. Reduced revenues also means less money to spend on buying Zeppelins. Just because they can does not mean they will. 6. Actually, no. ISP's are already implementing traffic shaping to reduce network load caused by file sharing service such as Bittorrent. http://www.torrentfreak.com/canadian-isp-is-thrott ling-bittorrent-traffic/ Also, what's with the bit about ISP's advertising free legal music?
7. Realistically there are not many movements that create jobs. However the results of such movement often times can. Also, Id like know exactly why you think these "pontificating" people know so little about a "commercial world"
8. Id like to know more about Chinese demographics myself. Specifically Id like to know, just what the median income in income is? Wikipedia tells me it is
about $8,000 US. Now after costs of living, how much is really left over to spend on CD's that cost $20 bucks a pop?
9. Well personally me and my ten best friends think there is nothing wrong with music piracy. So according to a study done by an American pro-piracy grou pmost people see nothing wrong with piracy.
10. Actually, peer to peer networks are hotbeds for finding new music. Ever heard of a group called Umphrey's McGee? Well I hadn't until I found a taping of
one of their concerts on a Bittorent tracker.
Suppose it's during prohibition. Whose argument would trust most: The alcholic who wants his fix for cheap, the saloon owner who stands to profit, or the teetotaler who thinks that outlawing alcohol is wrong? My point is that the alcholics actually hurt the cause of legal alcohol by obviously abusing it. Likewise, the people who download all the hip singles without paying a cent to the RIAA or the artists only encourage worse DRM and laws against such behavior.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
Movies don't get made if there is no money. You figure out how much a movie will cost, and then you get enough investors to get that big pile of cash. All the people get paid, the movie gets made.
Maybe it will make money and the investors make a tidy profit, or maybe it loses money. You invest $1000.00 and it is gone forever, but Revenge of the Nerds 7 now adorns the shelf at the local video store.
Most movies don't make money. Studios are not stupid, they don't use their own money. They use investors money.
There are people who invest in a movie as a tax write off, sometimes they lose and the movie makes money. They will not be discouraged by piracy eating into movie profits.
There will always be stoopid people out there willing to invest in Scooby Doo 4 because it will be like "the matrix, but taking place in a haunted mansion with a butteyfly effect vibe to it". Piracy won't stop them either.
Besides, I am sure Bollywood is willing to pick up the slack.
vi +
I have a big problem with that, however: these executives claim to be standing up for the artists, they they actually go out and discover new talent, etc.
When was the last time you heard a record company executive say they like to manufacture new acts, they don't care if their performers can sing because they can digitally correct it, etc.?
If they were actually honest about how they did business, and said exactly what you just did here, I couldn't fault them for it, because then we could just blame the consumers for being stupid.
Three against P2P :
:
* You are never anonymous
* Leeching is always doable and bear less legal risks
* Geeks don't pay to go to overcrowded concerts
Three against current digital stores
* Illegal, pirate and free competitors are STILL more convenient than paid offer.
* I have the CD, therefore, I should get the mp3, aac, whatever.
* We get films for free on the TV after a few years, and popular tunes are available freely on the radio, why can't YOU get paid by the ads ? Well, I know why, but people perceive value this way.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Hey, I hate the Music And Film Industry Associations of America as much as the next guy. This doesn't mean that I think it's okay to short them out, though. We all know they've been giving most artists the raw end of the deal for years, but they've helped many talented artists get richer than they would have without them. (And it's not like the artists get money from your behavior). By your logic, we should all download copies of Vista because Microsoft is being mean to the Open Source community. (Nevermind that this gives M$ more mind share without helping Open Source projects at all).
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
No. Those two hold simultaneously in a scenario where the music preferences of people who use P2P networks simply mirror those of the general population. Each person who downloads a track picks it because they want to hear that track; what label it came out on is irrelevant as a motive (point #4). Since the tracks that most people prefer are released on major labels, most of the music downloaded is from major labels; however, that's just a contigent fact, because knowledge or preference for kind of label affiliation played no role at any individual event where a person picked a track to download.
Are you adequate?
In the past it could be measured by the sales of blank cassettes (Come on, what were people supposed to use them for?!)
But back then, you at least had to know someone who owned the original if you didn't want crappy sound. There was a physical barrier limiting people to how far piracy can go.
I'm always amazed at the number of otherwise reasonable Slashdaughters who will actually defend bullshit laws like copyright just because it is the 'law'.
Good thing the Slashdot community doesn't concern itself with civil rights. If Slashdot had been around in the 1950's, then we would have spent fifty years endlessly debating the rights of the majority to enforce racial segration, down to seperate-but-equal water fountains.
Some things like slavery, racial segration, and RIAA extortion are just plain wrong. Regardless of how creative some of us are in coming up with weird pseudo-legalistic arguments for supporting them.
On the other hand, the reality is that the big studios control the vast majority of artists and industry money, and those are the ones who need to be tarred (and feathered.) I understand that generalizations can be dangerous. However, I think you can safely assume, at least here on Slashdot, that when negative references are made about the music industry, it is the big boys to whom we are referring. The folks that run those operations are, by and large, lying bastards who deserve no sympathy whatsoever, and who have all the warmth and humanity of a cockroach. I've seen very few complaints about independent operations, who have to actually compete and consequently treat their suppliers with a bit more respect.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Most glaringly, point 10 directly contradicts point 5. I'd say point 10 is the more correct (most filesharing focuses on big, popular, commercial artists) - but that blows a hole in point 5, because it suggests the labels would do far better trying to sell innovative music with genuine artistic value to music enthusiasts, rather than trying to sell mass-produced pap to people who really just want some background noise and are happy to download it if that's more convenient than buying it.
Beyond this, the biggest obvious problem is the implication in point 7 that the music industry "create(s) jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth". I'd file this under 'unproven', at least in the sense under discussion here (piracy threatens the music industry's ability to create jobs, exports etc etc). The problem is that to prove this the music industry has to prove not only that people pirate music, but crucially also that the music they save by pirating music isn't just injected back into the economy in some equally beneficial way through some industry. If Joe Bloggs pirates five albums a week but still spends all his disposable income on movies, junk food and clothes, the overall effect on the economy is exactly the same as if he'd spent some of that money on buying the albums. The music industry is trying to dress up its own self-interest as the benefit of the entire economy, but they need more proof to succeed in this.
Oh, and point 8 is easy to blow away: Chinese living standards are still at the point where, in most of China, you need to be classified as middle- or higher-income in order for a CD player not to constitute a significant chunk of your income. And people who can't afford CD players are not likely to pirate CDs.
So, everyone who has any torrent program is responsible for 9/11 now... didn't see that one coming, which I think is the most amount of innovation i've seen from the IFPA/MPAA/RIAA/etc in quite some time.
I really loved the way they tout allofmp3.com as a site that was reposible for this and that and allofmp3 have attempted to pay the music industry on a number of occasions. Quite stupid really.
In a free market, you would be absolutely correct. A free market has no copyrights, patents, barriers to entry, or other such trivialities, and performs exactly as you suggest. (Which, incidentally, is nothing like the real world). Are you suggesting that a totally free market is the ideal, and that anything that falls short of that ideal is bad? I personally think patents, copyright, and trade secrets encourage innovation and give me more and better options than your completely free market. I think my options would be even better if copyright terms were shorter and DRM was legal to circumvent. As for you, once you go beyond Econ 101 you might even learn that P>MC even though P->MC in your mythical free market.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
First off Pirate bay gives free music, they make their money off ADVERTISING! You instead force people to over pay to buy your music which has 1 track they want 12 tracks they don't want.
Second Organized criminal gangs and terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs... But wait this is about file sharing? So instead of buying a counterfeit Cd, file share.
Illegal file-shares don't care about which work they distribute, so you should care, that way you're not illegal?
Reduce revenues for the record company means less money to take risks on "underground artists" but they'll still find a way to give huge salaries to the crappy teen pop that sells because of sex and exploitation rather than, you know? Good music?
The anti-copyright movement doesn't create jobs, but neither does fat cat record houses that only exists to make money for themselves, the managers and everyone but the artists. Rather independent labels creates jobs and money rather then hoarding it. Oh but it's ok because concerts are where they make the real money?
Piracy is not caused by poverty. No shit. Piracy is caused because of the over pricing of goods. If you're that poor you don't have a computer, but on the other hand even if you have a ton of money you're not going to pay 10 times the value of an object just because a corporation tells you to.
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. Ok I agree with this one. But at the same time I dont' feel any moral problem with me downloading a song that is made by a foreign group that's not available in america, namely Super Eurobeat's selection, or dancemania (if I ever find it). Why? Because I still can't get any of these CDs in america with out over paying some importer who likely will pocket the extra 20 a cd.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music? So wait if I never heard any of the other songs Britney put out and then I listened to them even though they are popular I didn't discover new music? Yeah I did. Just because THEY know of the music and they think of it as popular doesn't mean someone else has never heard it.
That's 8 of their "truthes" refuted. But let's be honest this is just an attempt for them to say "We're not the bad guys here" and you know what there are people out there trying to break the law just to get the most music. But every time I walk into a music store and hear the idol of the second I find myself wondering if it's wrong to file share? Why do I have to get tons of bad music or DRM pushed at me to get a song I care about? Like I said I can't buy a lot of the music I love in America, it's not available here, and until it is I'm going to be stuck bittorrenting the CDs. Would I buy their records if they were available here? Yeah I would, but I'd also just buy the "best of" instead of every CD and that way get a higher quality recording.
Ok, here it is, point by point...
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.
How much of that "thousands of euros" goes towards bandwidth, maintaining the site, legal fees? I bet they don't have a very good bottom line. Besides, if it's so profitable to offer free, advertising supported music downloads why doesn't the music industry do it themselves, legally?
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.
My understanding was that they were legally licensed by the appropriate authority in Russia. The international recording industry groups noticed and said, "you can't do that", and pushed for criminal proceedings. Anyone care to correct this if I'm wrong?
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Ok, two points to debunk on this. (1) There is a major difference between mass production counter fitting and sharing files online with friends and the P2P community. I highly doubt you'll see organized criminals or terrorists making money from the latter. (2) So what? Terrorists can make money lots of ways, some of them very legal. Should we stop earning money legally just because terrorists do it? What if a terrorist eats spaghetti for dinner, should we outlaw the eating of spaghetti?
Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
If that's not a vague statement that is made up off the top of someone's head, I don't know what is. Ok, there are certainly some file sharers that fall into that category. There will also be at least some who care about the difference of where the music comes from. There are also those that outright refuse to buy or listen to music released by major record labels period, and a myriad of other categories. Until I see some valid, unbiased statistical survey to support who falls into what category this statement is meaningless to me. Even after seeing such a survey I doubt that it will show anything other than what we already know, some people care and some people don't, that's humanity, get over it.
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.
You spend your money where you want to, but don't be surprised if no one likes the results. I ceartainly won't be buying an "American Idle" CD in the near future. Also, why should I be concerned about propping up your failing business model just so that you can sell me music I want to hear? I'm the consumer, not an investor. You first go out and find artists and music that I like (and sell it DRM free on the store shelves and online) and then I will buy it, not before.
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.
If you have a problem with the way that ISPs advertise take it up with the ISP, I can't control that. As for "facilitating", you mean they don't actively block and cripple my internet connection to cow down to your demands, then that's a good thing. The day that I get crippled service from my ISP because they gave in to your demands is the day that I switch ISPs, so I would say that ISPs have a good incentive to not cripple my connection, they want to keep their customers.
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
...and Ticketmaster's monopoly takes a fair chunk out of that, too.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
This come as no surprise of course they are going to say that.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Dear RIAA:
Your business model is doomed to extinction.
Sincerely,
The Truth.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
... well you get the idea.
Wow. An actual truth. What went wrong there?
As long as you don't get a bad radio commercial instead of the song you wanted to listen. I remember when a friend wanted to d/l Matrix Reloaded and instead was given
Guess you missed the one about all of the chinese toothpaste that's been banned. Technically you don't eat toothpaste, but its still something you stick in your mouth.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
there is no "intellectual property". the term property refers to items that are exclusive, and cannot be consumed by two or more parties simultaneously. once a technology is discovered, the products of that technology can be used in a non-exclusive manner, i.e. once a drug is developed somewhere, anyone else can mass-produce it, if they know how. the original inventor still has the know-how though, it hasn't been taken away from them. the benefits from the invention to the society are also present. the only thing that may not be there is the opportunity for the inventors to cash from their invention.
the logic behind copyright, patents, trademarks and similar rights is that this opportunity to cash is essential for more invention (whether this logic holds should be matter of debate. standard economic theory would suggest it doesn't hold very well, but nevermind). the deal is as follows:
the society part:
1. the society gives the inventor a limited monopoly to make cash (in addition to the social framework and infrastructure that make the existence of the inventor possible)
2. the society loses out during that limited time, because if the invention could have been copied, it would have delivered cheaper benefits.
3. the society makes the losses in (2) back from increased investment on inventions and because in the long term the ideas passing into the public domain, enriching all members
the inventor/copyright owner part:
1. has opportunity to make cash for limited time
2. has to eventually give up on the monopoly and
3. has to produce more new inventions
The problem is that IFPI and its members fight to make the deal look more like:
The IFPI member part part:
1. owns whatever ideas they can buy up forever, regardless of further innovation
the society part:
2. pays up or else
This would be a fine arrangement, if the IFPI members existed in a vacuum and were not using the society facilities at all. But they don't, they can't have it both ways. They'll have to either accept the original deal, or the society will eventualy give up on the original deal, and on the IFPI members.
I've seen this claim made several times here on /. but have never found a source. Do you know if that is actually true or are you just repeating what you've seen on forums?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
8. 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.
Oh? Oh really? Could it be because people in poverty are concerned with other things like maybe FOOD or SHELTER or basic HEALTHCARE? Did someone skip Psycho 101?
In other news, Lexus and Mercedes cars aren't selling well among the <$15,000 income bracket...even with the new HDTV-specific commercials. Analysts are stumped...
I don't think so... A more accurate description of the matter is that we're downloading the songs we can't get without paying an enormous overhead to the RIAA/label. We really could care less about the poor record company executive not being able to buy his fifteenth mansion.
So, here's an open letter to the RIAA and all the recording labels out there that aren't passing at least 75% of the profits on to the artist: Go away, we don't want you. We as consumers would rather pay the artist. It's either most of the money to the artist, all to the artist, or none at all.
Frankly, all the "evil record industry" ranting is missing the point that a lot of this problem comes down not just to the labels, but also to artists who want to "make it big" or "go major" end up making bad deals with labels, where they come out behind what they would come out if they weren't as ambitious. That is, major labels exploit a supply of artists who, out of wishful thinking about their chances for success, fail to properly account for the risk they take on by signing.
Are you adequate?
You're forgetting something that would strengthen your argument: the record labels aren't just providing a service to music buyers, they're also providing a service to the music makers. Artists are perfectly fine to work out their own deals for financing, distributing and promoting their records, for collecting money from retailers, etc.
And as a music buyer, you should expect to have to pay for those costs indirectly when you buy music, no matter what kind of deals the artist makes to obtain those services. This is a reason why the common "the money should go to the artist" excuses for piracy are bullshit--even if the money did go to the artist directly, the artist would still have to pay a lot to get the same services they're getting. Why? Because the demand for financing, distribution and promotion of music records far exceeds the supply, or in other words, for every guy who wants to release their record on a major label, there's gazillions of others who'd also like to, who'd sell just as well.
Are you adequate?
Why would the pirates pay $4-5 for something they can get for free? You're baldly stating something that just begs the question.
Are you adequate?
When Napster first came about, people could easily find the music of "unknown" artists, and successfully download/listen to it. When labels cracked down, file sharing moved to P2P, and this reduced the reliability of the system somewhat, meaning that popular songs shared by many hosts would be the only guaranteed downloads for music sharers. When the recording industry then added "junk" files left and right, this further reduced the reliability, and reinforced the distribution of only popular content.
Their point is true, but only because the recording industry brought it about.
There are no legitimate arguments against file sharing, such that you could restrict, ban, or impede it based on the fact there are many who use the technology for illegal purposes.
There is nothing unethical about peer-to-peer file sharing technology itself. The same exact type of arguments used against file sharing technology could be used against the web, the US postal service, highways, and street corners.
FAQs are evil.
Shall we ban all the evil terrorist-aiding public libraries too?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
When I legally buy or rent a movie and I can't skip the previews for movies I saw 5 years ago, and when I am yet again subjected to the same god awful 5 minute add calling me a thief, it pisses me off.
When I buy a computer game and the disc comes in a paper sleeve with no printed manual and a box the size of a small paperback, and it doesn't cost any less than when they used to do that sort of thing, it pisses me off.
When I buy a cd and the album liner is a single sheet of paper with no lyrics, liner notes, or anything else, and it still costs as much as it used to, it pisses me off.
When the company that sold me that CD sues anyone who tries to provide me with the missing information(ie lyrics) that they didn't provide me with in the first place when I paid them, it pisses me off.
There seem to be a lot of people in the MAFIAA who have forgotten what business they are in.
They're not in the record industry(even assuming that they actually still make records, and they're not in the movie industry. They are in the ENTERTAINMENT industry. The product they sell is entertainment, they just specialize in a particular form of entertainment. If their product doesn't entertain me then they failed.
I'm sick of people who infringe copyright trying to somehow make out that they are victims or do-gooders somehow. Bottom line is that a software/music/video pirate is getting the results of someone else's hard work for free.
If you want to pirate stuff, wear the eyepatch. Admit that you are copying stuff because you want to enjoy it without paying for it. Stop pretending you are somehow making the world a better place, because you aren't.
And why are they called "software pirates" anyhow? Why not ninjas? They're just as cool as pirates.
And while we're on the topic, maybe if they called it something other than piracy it wouldn't be so popular... like "Software Actuary". People wouldn't want to admit "Hey, I logged on to the internet last night and actuaried some MP3s."
And now I will babble like a monkey. ook. ook. ook.
"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."
Yeah, I've always found this to be absurd. Why do they need to have a revenue stream for a site with a huge amount of visitors run by a couple of guys with enough on their hands to make it a full-time occupation for them?
Seriously, they're Swedish. In addition to liberal file-sharing laws, servers in Sweden are also free, co-location and bandwidth is complimentary, and your daily expenses are fully subsidised!
For a group who claims to be as knowledgable about business and real-world economics, they sure are going from firm conviction to blatant ignorance in a flash.
But another reason I download movies is space. A 500-DVD collection takes up quite a bit of shelf space. I'd much prefer a HD with those movies in XVID format. DVDs are more about preventing copying (no, stop laughing) than they are about content delivery. At least that was the intent.
that while you can rip apart the arguments made in the article, violating people's copyrights is still immoral and illegal.
I'm not saying I haven't done it, or that I'll never do it again, but I am saying that it's wrong. I am perfectly aware of the fact that I am not always a moral person, but I have other ambitions in life than sainthood.
It annoys me that a lot of people who pirate music can't deal with the fact that they have moral failings, so they have to vilify the copyright holders. It strikes me as a particularly weak sort of person that always has to cast themselves as the victim in order to feel good about themselves.
It's a lot easier to make some self righteous comments about how you're fighting the evil of the RIAA than to admit a moral failing. I'm not saying the RIAA hasn't done obnoxious stuff, but that's beside the point.
People don't steal to right a wrong. We are not robin hood, prince of thieves. We are petty criminals taking what we want because it is convenient and easy, and because for the most part no one can stop us.
a. How much is a company like Sony making, and how much profit is joe, average artist, making at Sony?
b. Just like the former head of Yukos hwo's also in jail. Legal equality does not exist in russia. I think we all know whyAllOFMP3.com is facing court: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/01/22 15257/>
c. This has nothing to do with filesharing. It has everything to do with professional manufacturing and selling CD's. d. Tht criminals drop selling drugs in favour if illegal CD's goes to show how spectecular the profits are on music. It's more than indecent
e. Many smaller labels and artists release early work into file sharing networks themselves. It's free marketing. Big labels are concerned by this since they had the monopoly on market access.
f. Releasing music and bringing it into the market now costs less. Thus more and more "underground" artists can affort this opportunity. The could even do it without selling their souls to a big label. Since "blockbusters"do not bring in the huge profits anymore labels are forced to diversify in lots of smaller ("underground") music releases.
g. Hmm. We have an advertisement here from shell, driving a ferrari Formula 1 car through a local town. LETS GET THEM TOO!
h. The business model of big labels, based on expensive market access, is no longer valid. Other companies with a more up-to-date business model seem to be doing just fine. More people have access to more music as a result of this. And one could ask the question if the music market at large is growing or shrinking (expressed in money). It's just more smaller companies instead of a few big corporations that are too big to move with a changing market. i. Wasn't the argument in point 1 that the pirate bay is making money? hmmmm
j. as TFA points out: poor people do not have access to the internet. Firts food, then education, then a pleasant living environment (incl. buying music) k. How is this point excactly 'inconvinient' ?
l. 'wrong'being defined as? People are willng to pay for music. fo
I see piracy as a form of civil disobedience. Ofcourse this might sound a *bit* preposterous, since highlight cases of civil disobedience in US are things like the civil liberties movement, the American revolution (quite a bit of civil disobedience, that) and the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era.
However, the fact is that the companies that sell movies have the inferior product. They sell you a bulky disk with a movie you can't really take back if it sucks and that you can only view on a player (or if you use the right OS/software, on a laptop). If you pirate a movie, you get a slim file, able to go on a variety of devices for easy viewing. And mostly the picture quality does not discernibly change from the original. The old image of piracy was inferior product = lower price. Now it's superior product / free.
Now, why should a consumer pay for an inferior product, which is not only expensive, but promises to keep milking the full price (media+license to watch) for each new media update. **AA believes that laws should be changed to solve the "problem", and I believe the same. I believe that you should be able to buy the right to watch the movie and that right should be transferrable to any media. I do believe that it's OK to charge a minor fee for new media innovations/media, but it's not OK to charge full price every time you move from Beta -> VHS -> Laserdisc -> DVD -> HDDVD -> whatever.
I personally have large collection of DVDs gathering dust because I just can't be bothered to watch them from the disc, I rather see the DivX version. Luckily in Finland you're no longer a criminal for DeCSSing a DVD (you were, until a recent court ruling), but in many countries you are. Therefore it's easy to see why people would just get a superior product for free, rather than pay for a DVD, convert it and then be considered a criminal anyway.
So whatever else it is, it's a community fighting the evil empire to bring balance to the for... eh, to bring fairness into the business models. There will always be piracy, but there would not be widespread piracy if the products are reasonably priced and better/equal to those of the pirates.
And yes.. I know this is a bit of a troll, but i'm just trying to bring out a point of view that seems to drown under the cries of "Down with **AA!" or "Piracy is crime!".
"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."
Pirate Bay's rhetoric is about free music for the users, that they charge advertisers is irrelevant to that issue. They are providing the music for free, which is their stated goal. They aren't anti-profit/capitalist. The have to pull in money to cover the costs of bandwidth. The rest of the article is pretty silly as well, but i'll leave that to the rest of you.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
see http://www.virtualrecordings.com/communism.jpg
:-)
switch communism terrorism
we can always re-use old jokes
[] Leonardo Kenji Shikida
They make 6 fair points, the first four are opinion in the form of FUD, not reasoned argument. As for points 5 and 10, new music IS discovered through open sharing channels, it's just that the marketing machines of the major labels have so much of the market swamped with "washing machine rhythms" and warbling, "autotuned" organic robots in skank fashion, that even in cyberspace, nobody can hear you dream. (...and this is what they really want the sales revenue for, to drown us in radio payola and product placement.) FCUK Sony, FCUK EMI, FCUK the labels, let musicians be free of middle-men, so that the music may flow freely and new economies grow to pay them.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
The thing is, file sharing of copyrighted material is pushing it a bit when talking about fair use. Even in the old days, fair use would not have really applied to most of the copying going on.
The RIAA suing people is pathetic, but bear in mind that the scale of the piracy some of these kids are doing pwnes the old Cassette pirates of the 80s. (many of whom received quite harsh penalties I would like to remind)