Having used file sharing at least once in your life is not equivalent to downloading or uploading files copyrighted by RIAA members.
So you say that filesharing has legal purposes in a substantial number of cases? I agree!
Only if there is a significant overlap between the people who illegally use P2P and those who actually buy CDs. You have not shown this to be the case.
You haven't shown that it isn't. Anecdotally, there's a significant overlap. But it's not possible to establish it either way without a study and the social sciences stuff that goes with it.
These people aren't on average going to be swayed to buy one fewer CD in the next decade. You certainly haven't shown this to be the case.
Again, you haven't shown this to not be the case. And, though a guess, it certainly isn't a wild-assed one.
What numbers? You've thrown out a single number which isn't even backed up by the article you linked. The article doesn't say anywhere in it that 50 million people use P2P, and it certainly doesn't say that 50 million people regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm sorry, you haven't even backed up your misapplied numbers.
Again, you're saying most filesharing traffic isn't copyrighted material of RIAA members. You're probably right. But you haven't shown the numbers are misapplied.
Moi, trolling? Surely you jest. (Although being called out as troll by dipierro is truly an honor:).)
And I've given plenty of assertion. Either 10,000,000 (your number) or 50,000,000 people use file sharing, according to different estimates by those who have studied the field extensively for publication. The RIAA has declared war publicly on these people, either by proxy (downloaders) or directly (uploaders). Either number is a substantial segment of the market. Even if each of these people on average are swayed to by one less CD in the next decade, the sales are "really going to tank."
Can I say with absolute certainty what the result of their actions will be? No. But neither can you, and the numbers don't look good for the RIAA.
You're comparing numbers published by experts and journalists with estimates pulled from thin air to support your own world view. "5 or 6 people?" Come on.
You know why IDs are required? It has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with avoiding the resale of tickets. The airlines wanted to do this for decades. After Lockerbie, they got their opportunity.
We're picking nits over numbers in the same order of magnitude. 10E6 or 50E6 is still a hell of a lot of people. And the RIAA's actions aren't just alienating the "felon" uploaders--you think the people who can't find their out of print material because the chilling effect aren't going to be upset, too?
I didn't introduce the analogies. The point is that the RIAA is creating ill-will by threating the entire next generation of its members' customers.
And by saying that the scarcity of theatre seats is not based on natural law, you're saying that there exists a theatre with infinite seats? If so, where is it? If that's preposterous, then it must be conceded that the scarcity is indeed based on natural law.
Except in the case of theatre seats, the scarcity is natural (finite number of seats/amount of space) and in the case of digital media it is artificially created. Thus, any analogy between the two is fundamentally flawed.
The scarcity of theatre seats is based on natural law, the scarcity of digital media on man-made constraints that are naturally overcome.
When someone copies something, there isn't any less of it. In a theatre, if someone occupies a seat, there's one less seat that could be sold. That's why it's illegal to sneak in--the theatre loses the ability to sell that seat. Theoretically, there's no loss to the theatre if someone sneaks in after the movies starts who wouldn't have paid anyway. This is, in fact, a pricing model being worked on by the Easyjet folks in the UK--selling last minute tickets for less (or more, if demand is high) as the time of the movie gets closer.
Copying music, if we are to use the analogy of sneaking into a theatre, is like sneaking into a theatre with an infinite number of seats, which are all the best seat in the house. Nothing is diminished by the copying of a song, save for the false value which was created by its artificial scarcity.
That is true, but they still serve a vital purpose in deterring corporations from screwing with the little guy, knowing that a pack of rabid lawyers lies in wait in the tall grass.
It would be nice if the affected customers saw real gain from the settlement, but at least the offending company is punished--better than what would happen if suing as a class were not allowed.
The reward system would be particularly pernicious. It'd create a Stasi with respect to file sharing right here in the U.S. You sure you aren't working for "them"?
Comparisons with shoplifting are bogus, and you know it--shoplifting is actual theft, and was a criminal offense without the retail having to buy laws to make it one. The others have nothing to do with the recording industry, either, but at least don't involve actual theft, as opposed to copyright infringement.
Did we stop using Slashdot when they threatened to sue AlterSlash?
So if a spammer uses some copyrighted information in the contents of his spam, can the copyright holder use the DMCA "subpeona cause I feel like it" clause to find the spammer
Sure, if you can convince the Chinese or Korean ISP to honor the subpoena.
Spoken like someone who hasn't bought a copy protected CD and tried to play it in his car stereo, Mac, or what have you. And if most people wouldn't care, it wouldn't be all that big a problem for the record companies, would it?
LI mean, if the people trading files were only those "P2P dorks" (how inflammatory!) at the edge of civil society, it wouldn't be worth the time and money to go after them, right?
The problem the "industry" has is that non-"dorks" have bitten from the apple too. And this is why, in the end, the "industry" is screwed. When those who had been using P2P (remember, it's enough for the record industry to worry about) can't anymore, they'll just trade physical media in person and electronically trade in trusted groups.
And there will be even more apprehension to buying music. I don't use P2P, but I only buy used CDs and those from RIAA labels. After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank.
I knew freedom.net was a casualty of 9/11 (despite pro forma protestations by ZKS to the contrary), but thought HavenCo was still going strong as, well, a haven. (Of course, I'd have expected connectivity to the Principality to have been cut off if things ever got hot, anyway.)
Please allow me to add myself to the list of those interested in hearing your account of how things actually went down.
Slashdot Mirror
So you say that filesharing has legal purposes in a substantial number of cases? I agree!
Only if there is a significant overlap between the people who illegally use P2P and those who actually buy CDs. You have not shown this to be the case.
You haven't shown that it isn't. Anecdotally, there's a significant overlap. But it's not possible to establish it either way without a study and the social sciences stuff that goes with it.
These people aren't on average going to be swayed to buy one fewer CD in the next decade. You certainly haven't shown this to be the case.
Again, you haven't shown this to not be the case. And, though a guess, it certainly isn't a wild-assed one.
What numbers? You've thrown out a single number which isn't even backed up by the article you linked. The article doesn't say anywhere in it that 50 million people use P2P, and it certainly doesn't say that 50 million people regularly trade mp3s copyrighted by RIAA members. I'm sorry, you haven't even backed up your misapplied numbers.
Again, you're saying most filesharing traffic isn't copyrighted material of RIAA members. You're probably right. But you haven't shown the numbers are misapplied.
Thanks for the pointer--do you have some search terms you could share?
And I've given plenty of assertion. Either 10,000,000 (your number) or 50,000,000 people use file sharing, according to different estimates by those who have studied the field extensively for publication. The RIAA has declared war publicly on these people, either by proxy (downloaders) or directly (uploaders). Either number is a substantial segment of the market. Even if each of these people on average are swayed to by one less CD in the next decade, the sales are "really going to tank."
Can I say with absolute certainty what the result of their actions will be? No. But neither can you, and the numbers don't look good for the RIAA.
You're comparing numbers published by experts and journalists with estimates pulled from thin air to support your own world view. "5 or 6 people?" Come on.
You know why IDs are required? It has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with avoiding the resale of tickets. The airlines wanted to do this for decades. After Lockerbie, they got their opportunity.
We're picking nits over numbers in the same order of magnitude. 10E6 or 50E6 is still a hell of a lot of people. And the RIAA's actions aren't just alienating the "felon" uploaders--you think the people who can't find their out of print material because the chilling effect aren't going to be upset, too?
Maybe that should be their prerogative, but a public accommodation, it isn't.
That being the case, it should be their prereogative to deny boarding to, say, blacks--or homosexuals. Right?
Statistically, that would be most of them.
Sure, the universe is a theatre with infinite seats.
LOL
And by saying that the scarcity of theatre seats is not based on natural law, you're saying that there exists a theatre with infinite seats? If so, where is it? If that's preposterous, then it must be conceded that the scarcity is indeed based on natural law.
The scarcity of theatre seats is based on natural law, the scarcity of digital media on man-made constraints that are naturally overcome.
Copying music, if we are to use the analogy of sneaking into a theatre, is like sneaking into a theatre with an infinite number of seats, which are all the best seat in the house. Nothing is diminished by the copying of a song, save for the false value which was created by its artificial scarcity.
It would be nice if the affected customers saw real gain from the settlement, but at least the offending company is punished--better than what would happen if suing as a class were not allowed.
The reward system would be particularly pernicious. It'd create a Stasi with respect to file sharing right here in the U.S. You sure you aren't working for "them"?
Easy. They show up at the "ripping party," film everyone, and a few days later, armed federal agents kick down the doors of everyone except the phed.
Sure, that analogy works perfectly, for movie theatres with an infinite number of seats.
Did we stop using Slashdot when they threatened to sue AlterSlash?
I didn't know that happened!
Sure, if you can convince the Chinese or Korean ISP to honor the subpoena.
LI mean, if the people trading files were only those "P2P dorks" (how inflammatory!) at the edge of civil society, it wouldn't be worth the time and money to go after them, right?
The problem the "industry" has is that non-"dorks" have bitten from the apple too. And this is why, in the end, the "industry" is screwed. When those who had been using P2P (remember, it's enough for the record industry to worry about) can't anymore, they'll just trade physical media in person and electronically trade in trusted groups.
That's why you use a provider that doesn't keep logs.
s/RIAA labels/non-RIAA labels/ in the above.
And there will be even more apprehension to buying music. I don't use P2P, but I only buy used CDs and those from RIAA labels. After a few well-publicized lawsuits against sympathetic kids, RIAA members' sales are really going to tank.
"On request" != "automatically" so his comment remains valid. Good to know that separating servicemembers can request this destruction, though.
Please allow me to add myself to the list of those interested in hearing your account of how things actually went down.
I'm inclined to agree, but it's a very common practice.