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?

Comments

I don't pirate anything

[Anonymous Coward]

But if I get taxed £20, i'll be sure to download at least £200 worth of media.

Re:I don't pirate anything

[Spatial]

Except the people who weren't illegally downloading anyway. We get shafted and both of the other groups of assholes get something for nothing.

Pass.

The answer to reducing illegal file-sharing

[RootWind]

How about producing music people actually want to buy?

Re:The answer to reducing illegal file-sharing

[larry bagina]

because people are illegally downloading music they don't like?

Re:The answer to reducing illegal file-sharing

[b4dc0d3r]

I sure as hell do. But not intentionally. I hear something on the radio, google the lyrics, figure out who wrote it, go to Amazon and figure out what's on the CD. Torrent or other p2p and grab the album, listen to it, and say "glad I didn't pay money for THAT" and delete it.

If there were a way to return crappy music I'd feel better about paying for it, but they assume if you open the package all you did was copy it and try to get it for free. If they want to assume I'm a pirate I have to play their game, and it ends up hurting them.

Typical artist contract has fees included with the assumption that albums will get damaged or otherwise unsaleable in transit. They have to turn this around and realize that digital copies will have the same fate - losses due to a marginal amount of piracy.

They paid for airtime in order to get higher billboard rankings - I save them the money and play it for myself, no cost. They think I'm a pirate if i listen before buying so I do. And in the end, I'm really doing my ISP a disservice by downloading so much crap I have a roughly 85% chance of having no interest in.

Re:short answer?

[SpinningCycle]

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.

Is there anything the RIAA can do...

[houstonbofh]

[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.

Re:Is there anything the RIAA can do...

[anagama]

I use both iTunes and Emusic. Neither are painful.

The fee is the ultimate goal

[whoever57]

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.

In Soviet Russia...

[macx666]

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.

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[realmolo]

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.

To avoid bad publicity, stop criminalizing clients

[Bearhouse]

"Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?"

Well, LOTS of things.
1. Stop treating their clients as criminals, (see earlier /. article on big downloaders also being the biggest purchasers.
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.

Again, it's simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[BobReturns]

Not to mention that only the big labels get a slice of a pie - essentially stifling competition.

People will just circumvent the internet

[nanuuq2]

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.

Re:Is there anything the RIAA can do?

[yotto]

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.

Re:Is there anything the RIAA can do?

[Just Some Guy]

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.

They already do this

[Weaselmancer]

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.

it won't be illegal once you pay for it.

[falconwolf]

I shouldn't be forced to pay for music I don't listen to.

Falcon

Re:it won't be illegal once you pay for it.

[rtb61]

The reality is the business model is dead. The publisher is no longer required to publish the music, the creators of the music can simply do it themselves. The time period in history for charging for 'dead' music rather than live music is over, get over it already. It was basically a parasitical business segment in society and basically did nothing to add to the economy it just basically lived off it.

So when it is gone, it means that money spent upon that parasitical part of the economy will simply be spent in other often more substantial, productive and, as it turns out less destructive areas of the economy. So distributed music media is going the direction of the vinyl record. The only thing the music publishing industry ever really provided was a massive public relations equals bull shit mass marketing engine of greed, oh yeah and how could I forget, 'sex, drugs and rock and roll'.

So tell me, why is it that supposedly conservative politicians and politically motivated religious groups around the world want to prop up that particular industry. I mean, is there some sort of serious mental disconnect between them and that whole 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' thing, the industry is famed for it and even goes out of it's way to promote, sell it and, in reality specifically targets the most vulnerable group in society with that message, children.