Slashdot Mirror
Inside the RIAA and MediaSentry
bsdewhurst sends along an interesting article about how MediaSentry and the RIAA identify file sharers. Since 2003, while the RIAA has been filing 28,000 lawsuits, the percentage of US Internet users using P2P for downloading music has dropped from 20% to 19% (there is no knowing how much of a factor the lawsuits have been). The list the RIAA uses for ISP takedown notices is about 700 currently popular songs that are updated based on the charts, so not liking the top 40 could save you. The list of songs tracked for the user-litigation program is said to be larger.
is not to download. Put your money where your mouth is and do not listen to it.
Whatever you call it, it is forbidden by law, so stop doing it. If you do not agree with their policy, do do not be a hypocrite and still use their product.
You would not like it if they would compromise your GPL license, so do not compromise theirs.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
a complete meaningless statistic.
The error inherent to measuring something that is 'unlawful' and often frowned upon is far greater than the difference between 19 and 20 percent. Perhaps everyone has simply got better at concealing their downloading of copyrighted material (mp3 blogs, private trackers, etc) or perhaps the effect of the RIAA's grandma-suing onslaught has been that people lie about their online activity more.
my password really is 'stinkypants'
The question is more like: Are they only sending take-down notices to certain universities?
No notices have been sent to Harvard, supposedly because they have lots of money, power, and law professors
I might just be getting old, but I think that music today is less compelling than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. Seriously, music today is crap. The drop probably has more to do with people not wanting big label music even if they can get it for free over the internet.
Of course, it should be noted that one percent is much smaller than the sampling error for this kind of thing, so for all we know it could have gone up.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
... because most people have downloaded everything they ever wanted to download.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I can't believe nobody caught this one from the article: When a consumer rips a song from a CD and gives the digital file a name, the computer hardware, ripping software and other digital data together create a digital file identified by a distinct hash code. If the user rips the same song with an older computer - even with the same software - the file will have a different hash code. The slightest change in the music source, computer hardware, ripping software, P2P protocol, file name or length of recording will change the hash code identifying the resulting MP3 file. 99% of all ripping software rips the track digitally from the CD and uses lame to encode it, setting up the id3 tag from a free online database. The processor and timing don't matter for shit. I say it's quite easy that 6 guys ripped a CD and came up with the same hash. This is the level of "evidence" the MafiAA's been giving to judges, and they won cases? I wanna know how many whores and bags of cash did it take to buy those judges off?
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
. . . the number of P2P clients that use peer blocking jumped 40%.
I suspect that the people measuring P2P downloading are the same people being paid to find downloaders. It's in their best interest to show that they're making a difference and should continue to be paid.
Actually, it's been almost 42 years since I was born, and despite not being a teenager, I think using the word "MAFIAA" reflects very nicely their tactics, the way that I've seen them to shake people down. I'm no proponent of piracy (even though I *am* a sailor...;) ), and in fact advocate against it whenever I see evidence of my customers having done so when I fix their systems.
Yet the heavy-handed tactics, their sense of entitlement, their buying of politicians, their often scant evidence turned into a weapon of overwhelming force when wielded by their army of lawyers, and the expense incurred upon *innocent people* to fight these oftentimes spurious claims makes me regard them with no sense of respect, none at all. So my disrespect is shown here in a textual manner by the use of a descriptive and IMO demeaning name.
Sorry if that sparked *your own* angst there, pal, but I can't help what you choose to get upset about.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
"Laws should follow morals, instead of morals following laws."
That is usually true in a democracy. However, look at our current crop of Congressmen, Senators, and Administration officials, and the way money influences them. After Our current grand scheme of government is that "money talks" and everyone else walks.
DAILY ROTATION
Yes, except the person who worked hard and invested their own money to produce the content you want to share.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Well, tough to your tough...
Your analogy is very weak, there is not ONE SINGLE pirate/person/leecher who are in anyway dictating who works when, secondly you provide a *SERVICE* not a *PRODUCT* that is by nature reproducible - the service isn't. Although if you that is what your truly meaning - then it's tough luck for you, simply because if your *ONLY* willing to provide your in-demand product at a lower quality and limited supply as to your competitors (yes the pirating is your competition) then that's *your* problem as I see it, simply because your refusing to supply what your customers want and then complain because they find a way to get it.
If your consumers are willing to chance getting caught obtaining *BETTER* quality version of your product by means in which you are out right *DENYING* them, then what in the hell do you expect?
Your customers aren't going to just accept that they are limited to low quality products, or nothing at all simply because you just dont want to provide it - especially when what they want is *VERY EASY* to obtain.
With the right software, obtaining the product you want is literally as complicated as writing a check to pay for the goods in real life. Regardless of the legality, this is at least partly what your competition is, and if you can not or will not provide what the competition does provide, your simply not going to get the business - if your customers are willing the risk the chance (what ever it may be) they *WILL* go to the competition every time.
Back when I started with Linux, I saw OSS as one thing (excluding the free aspect) - and that is forcing the commercial segment to get there act together are start producing valuable products again, otherwise everyone will just opt for the lower quality free product, it only makes common since.
The problem, as I see it at least, is that OSS and pirating is ultimately producing *HIGHER* quality products than what the commercial industry is *STILL* producing, and to top it off the cost of the products have gone up.
Two versions of the same product side by side, one is of higher quality and very easy to obtain - as compared to the one next to it, which is of lower quality and can be frustrating to obtain and keep (ZUNE DRM comes to mind I think). Which one do you think people are going to opt for?
Doesn't it go something like... If you can't stand the heat of the kitchen, get out?