Slashdot Mirror
Will the New RIAA Tactic Boost P2P File Sharing?
newtley writes "The RIAA's claim that it'll stop suing people may have serious consequences... for the RIAA. When it dropped its attack on seven University of Michigan students, Recording Industry vs. The People wondered if the move was linked to three investigations, with MediaSentry as the target, before Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth. Now, 'LSA sophomore Erin Breisacher said she stopped downloading music illegally after hearing about the possibility of receiving a lawsuit, but now that the RIAA has stopped pursuing lawsuits she "might start downloading again,"' says the Michigan Daily, going on to quote LSA senior Chad Nihranz as saying, 'I figure, if there aren't as many lawsuits they will come out with more software to allow students to download more.'"
What about some of the other potential tactics we've discussed recently, such as the UK's proposed £20 per year film and music tax or the $5 monthly fee suggested in the US? Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
But if I get taxed £20, i'll be sure to download at least £200 worth of media.
How about producing music people actually want to buy?
I predict the following strategy:
1) Stop suing.
2) Collect data on the rise of file-sharing to justify their lawsuits.
3) Start suing
4) ???
5) Profit.
Well, I'm not sure about #5.
[quote]Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?[/quote] Make a system that is as easy as thepiratebay and has as much stuff. Now it is convenience that is killing them. The Free part doesn't hurt, but it also doesn't help as much as the fact that the legal options are as painful as a root canal.
I believe the ultimate goal for the RIAA is to get a fee from every customer of an ISP. Money for doing nothing. The distribution of these fees will be such that independent artists get a token sum, while the RIAA gets money for nothing. That's what all the litigation is for -- to get this fee system established.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I know this sounds like the start of a bad joke, but this seems to be a fairly simple principle. When the USSR made it nearly impossible to get normal goods that the public wanted, an underground sprang up to fill the need. This is simple supply and demand economics. To generalize, making things overly expensive and tied to one internet connected device is only going to encourage a larger underground market.
People, on the whole, want to do the right thing, but you should not deprive them of their right to do whatever they want with things they have legally bought, or they will circumvent it. Humans adapt, learn, and defeat stupid things like copy protection and vendor-lock in all the time. If they really want to decrease piracy, then they should stop price gouging, stop overly restrictive DRM, allow better "try before you buy" methods, and truly embrace college communities via viral marketing techniques rather than call them criminals.
But hey, you already knew this. At this point, we're just beating a dead horse with this argument.
No, it's a NIGHTMARE.
Why should the music industry get a "yearly fee" from everyone with an internet connection? What if you never download music?
Never mind that if the music industry actually managed to make this happen, they could essentially STOP making music. Why would they bother? They'd be making billions of dollars a year on the *fees*!
A tax (because that's what it is) to keep an industry that produces entertainment/luxury products in business? Fuck that. It's total insanity, and if it ever does happen, the end of the world is near. Seriously.
"Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?"
Well, LOTS of things. /. article on big downloaders also being the biggest purchasers.
1. Stop treating their clients as criminals, (see earlier
2. Make more of their catalog available, faster, and more easily, to more paid download services.
2. Skip the DRM crap, (which will save money, too)
3. Divert the cash currently wasted on criminal clowns like MediaSentry and Sony rootkits to efforts to educate the public on how to download music safely, legally & cheaply.
4. Ink deals with content creators that take into account all revenue streams, (including concerts, the real money-spiners for many artists these days), with a fair share for all and which takes into consideration the investment made by production organisations in developing new talent.
5. Make it easy for people to buy/access, and archive/backup 'premium/HiRes/lossless' content (see 'DRM' above).
6. Promote standards for inteeoperability between various media storage and playback devices. Would I pay for to have my vast mp3 collection automagically tagged and sorted, with the ability to stream/upload to any device I own, and maybe grab the video if I want? Well, yes!
Now I'm going to stop dreaming, and go back to helping my teenage daughter convert a YouTube pop video for use on her iPod.
STOP BUYING AND/OR DOWNLOADING COMMERCIAL MUSIC.
Just stop. Seriously. Boycott any and all bands that go through publishers that have any affiliation whatsoever with these criminals. And yes, regardless of what you think, the RIAA ARE indeed criminals. I'm not talking "criminals" as in America's law, I'm talking "criminals" as in moral and ethical laws. Think "LAWFUL EVIL" for all you D&D fans out there. The only difference between you and them are dollar signs. That goes for the MPAA too.
If we could all go one, maybe two years without buying any music or movies (and I'm sure that's possible...it's called self-restraint) that have ties to these asswipes, they WILL go away because they won't have those pretty little dollar signs any more. Now is the BEST time to do this because of the economy. They're more vulnerable than ever.
Not to mention that only the big labels get a slice of a pie - essentially stifling competition.
I think the 'fees' and 'taxes' on broadband connections may very well work, but they depend very much on the details.
There has been a suggestion of the same thing being applied here in Sweden, with a strange twist: by paying the fee, you would be allowed to download everything your heart could desire. BUT (and it's a big but) it would still be illegal for you to _upload_ things! The net effect would be that you would be paying for the content the creators put on internet, not for anything else! Marvelous business plan...
If the 'fee'/'tax' allowed uploads as well, it could work. Until the porn industry starts claiming it's fair share of the money. I find it hard to believe there is no porn distributed illegally on internet, so the porn industry should have it's fair share. Yet, I would like to see the politician or high executive from an ISP supporting the porn industry's claim....
I know of people who trade USB keys. They fill them with their favourite songs, and either hand them around, or mail them. I know of people who have exchanged external Hard Drives. Think 500 GB external hard drives full of movies and songs. People will adapt. The RIAA will fall just like the IRA.
Sounds to me like a way to get the Govt to collect money for an industry. In spite of how things appear with what the Thundering Herd of Dumbass in Washington is doing, it is not the Govt's job to ensure profits for any business or industry.
I have one thing to say about how good a Govt run business in the U. S. can be: AMTRAK! (money sewer on rails)
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The old RIAA tactics didn't thwart downloading one iota, so it's hard to believe them 'dropping the lawsuits' will have much, if any, impact on the scenario.
The fact is The record companies that the RIAA represents, put out pretty crappy generic music. It's formulaic, and meant to sell - not be innovative or good.
The 'Indie' record industry has taken the place of most big record labels, by providing music that is more in line with what the artist wants to produce. The music is better, more creative, different, and quite honestly - what people prefer to hear.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
If the fact that we live in a society that values toilet paper more than theater offends you, then you need to make the decisions in your life that reflect this.
Um, I consider myself a pretty artsy person, but I value toilet paper pretty highly.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
If the fact that we live in a society that values toilet paper more than theater offends you, then you need to make the decisions in your life that reflect this.
Most engineers understand the concept of "supply and demand". Basically, there are more people capable and willing to do children's theater than business analysis. How would you "correct" this?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Why do all of the suggestions here assume the world still needs the RIAA, or record labels for that matter? Record labels exist to distribute and advertise music, both of which can now be done online without them. Just get rid of them.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Great list, I'd only add one item. Stop trying to bankrupt internet radio. Use at as a medium for promoting new music. Commercial radio is real good at promoting the twenty or so 'hits' that they play over and over and over. Internet radio could be good for promoting everything else. That is if the music industry wasn't intent on killing it.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Excellent points. All true. However, that's not the question.
Businesses already know how to maximize profit. The question was how to reduce piracy.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If the RIAA had perfect aim and only took out pirates that it could prove were pirates, they'd have a lot more sympathy.
Not really. I don't care if a given 16-year-old kid is guilty - I don't want him sued out of his college fund. If the RIAA had sued for reasonable amounts (say, $5-$10 per proven upload) and gone about it fairly, I might have a little sympathy. As it is, they're on the short list of people I'm going looking for if we ever have another civil war.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Check Google for blank media tax.
Hasn't stopped them from pursuing copyright violations so far.
You must remember these people are completely desperate. Their business model is dead. And it's a model that gave them millions for *nothing*. Sit behind a desk and collect royalties. Who wouldn't want that to continue? And if you happen to have the morals of a shark, why not try something like this? Double dipping would hardly be the least of their sins.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I shouldn't be forced to pay for music I don't listen to.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
P2P users who share and download music and movies are not pirates. They are the cure to a societal disease the has been infecting our country and culture for a long time. So, finally the cure comes along and the cancer (RIAA and MPAA) are screaming because they are dieing. Good! Let the disease drop dead. Stop looking at the pirates of music and video as bad people. They are helping to destroy that which has been destroying American culture for decades. The RIAA and MPAA don't have a leg to stand on. It's ok to pump out trash and shit by the truck load as long as your charge for it? But it's not OK to get trash and shit for free eh? Amazing. I can't wait until they finally prove the damage inflicted upon generations of youth by this crap the RIAA and MPAA have produced. Oh yeah we all get upset about big Tobacco...but we are supposed to feel sorry for the RIAA and the MPAA. Screw the RIAA and the MPAA and screw, especially, Jack Valente!!!
If the music industry wants to set things on fire again, they should:
1. Fire the RIAA, cancel all memberships, sue them for anything they can think of in order to firmly disassociate themselves from those lawyers. No one has done more to tarnish their image. No one gives more negative vibes.
2. Approve of and highly encourage music downloading, even pirating. Counter intuitively (to the labels), people who download music represent the most valuable customers in terms of money spent.
3. Encourage local development of musicians. That includes sponsorship of venues, regular contests, musical education, and paying the top artists to tour while actively encouraging other company sponsorship.
4. Develop centralized music delivery systems which offer rock bottom prices and use the latest p2p protocols. Stop discouraging internet radio stations through draconian licensing schemes.
5. Open up new venues by sponsoring community events with local artists. Offer location specific search features for the delivery services. This will provide a jumping off point for other products such as news and sports events if that is a desired pursuit.
6. Begin a program of purpose-built venues in cities lacking such. Vector local, statewide and national content to those venues with incentives and sponsorship.
7. Build your industry around the environment and event rather than tired and static delivery of content. It is only when that content can remain alive and dynamic that the music will flow again.
Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
Anything the RIAA can do? No. They're one-trick ponies: "OBEY, or we will destroy you!" By definition, they have been trying to generate bad publicity, because if they don't there is no upside, no deterrence, no reduction in widespread copyright infringement. Not that they've been particularly successful anyway.
Now that doesn't mean that nothing can be done. The studios can do a lot, if they're willing to accept that they can't ever return to the halcyon days of total distribution control. There's still plenty of money to be made, but they'll have to drop their past century of sleazy business practices, and start competing on the merits of their products.
I don't hold out much hope of that happening, but hey, even pigs have been known to fly now and then.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Many people would disagree with that assumption.
That's because many people believe their opinion to be the only valid one, that their world view is Right, and that everyone else's world view is Wrong.
What's wrong with a song about raping or murdering or stealing or taking drugs or being a douchebag? Sure we don't want people doing these things and don't condone them, but well; thought police much?
For the rest of your comment, while pretty much everyone would agree with you that there's a lot of rubbish that never should have been made, you'll find very little agreement on what the rubbish is and what the good stuff is.