"He was knowingly and wilfully helping others to share information representated as bits and those others have decided to share information falling under the copyright law, amongst different information free from copyright."
You are asking people to believe that EliteTorrents wasn't started with the express purpose of facilitating the torrenting of copyrighted movies, games, and music. I suppose that it might be possible to find somebody whom you could initially fool into believing that elitetorrents was intended for sharing linux distros and creative commons content, but even a brief look at the site would destroy any chance of getting somebody to believe that.
"As far as I can tell, this verdict means we will haul librarians to jail if they put a photocopier into the library: providing others with the means to violate copyright."
As the summary covered, he was nailed for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. "Conspiracy" is the key word. Librarians are generally not involved in conspiracies to commit copyright infringement.
If your response is "well, I see no difference...", keep in mind that this is what we have courts for. If your grandmother, your neighbor, or some random person on the street understands the difference between a librarian and the guy who runs "EliteTorrents," then your average judge will, too.
I'm wondering if you really see no difference, or you're just slippery-sloping for effect. Can you clarify?
"Where exactly is the line here?"
There is no exact line... that's why cases go to court. Every case is different. You can't easily do an If A, Then B, as in your "running a torrent tracker / working in a library" comparison.
"But make sure you lock your door next time, yeah?"
Exactly. The movie companies have cracked down a lot on screeners over the past few years for precisely this reason. Copies are more carefully distributed and various tracking measures are employed.
"They don't actually host the illegal material; just a reference to it."
This is exactly why he was nailed for "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement," and not "copyright infringement."
"If they're going to arrest admins for that, then why are search engines still indexing crack/serial/warez sites?"
Because the search engines are not in a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. EliteTorrents was. This wasn't a Linux distro or creative commons torrents site.
"If you want to get technical about it, the users submitting the torrents are the ones at fault, here."
Those who upload the files are liable to be busted for copyright infringement. As the summary stated, he was nailed for conspiracy to commit. This isn't an RTFA issue here... it's RTFS. My guess is that you're of the assumption that there can only be one wrongdoer, and thus if the users are infringing, then the torrent site operator cannot be charged. It doesn't work that way.
"But if he simply provided the web space for the torrent of copyrighted material to be hosted, and provided the bandwidth for the same, then his liability is somewhat questionable."
This reminds me of those Internet chain letters that state that if you send along a note to the effect of "add me to your mailing list" along with $5, you are providing a service, and not participating in a pyramid scheme. You seem quite certain in your belief that there's no legal liability in running a torrent site, and your post is presently +4 Informative, so many people appear to agree with you. You're still incorrect.
"BitTorrent has a valid use, just as an automobile. When it's misused though, it's not the responsibility of the manufacturer, the used car dealer, or even the gas station!"
Precisely -- that's why they nailed the guy who was misusing the software.
"Why send someone who hasnt harmed anyone to jail?"
I think the thought process is this:
Piracy doesn't harm anyone. Nobody has ever pirated something to save money, ever.
All those people who acknowledge on Slashdot that they pirate to save money? They're lying.
Or, if somebody really is hurt financially by piracy, they are probably some rich executive who can take the hit.
Or, if they happen to actually need the money, then you're simply helping nudge them toward a more enlightened existence, where they release their stuff for free, and make their money playing concerts or selling t-shirts or something. If they're really trying to make money through their intellectual efforts, then they're not an artist.
Nobody need worry about feeling the slightest bit bad for more than a few nanoseconds. Pirate all you want -- you're not hurting anybody, and in fact, you're probably helping them.
"Wouldnt getting him to do community work be a better way of dealing with him?"
Yes, then we could all feel free to run a Torrent site. A little community work isn't so bad, is it?
""a lesser-known programmer-infamously more obstinate and far more eccentric than Torvalds-wields a startling amount of control as this revolution's resident enforcer"
I can cover this one. I have personally smelled RMS. It is not pleasant. He is not fond of taking showers, because he does not like water. That is a fact. It is not something I would like said about me, but nonetheless, it is a fact.
From comparing the writing of the two, I would give the +10 sword of obstinacy to RMS. I have not smelled Messr. Torvalds, but at the same time, I have never read reports of fear of water or other abnormal eccentricities possessed by Linus. Somebody please correct me if I'm misinformed.
"However, if you and your 10,000 closest friends end up with copies of the artists song and the artist ends up with ZERO, NADA, begging for food on the street corner when they should have rightfully had at least a few grand then something bad happened and all your weasel wording won't hide that fact."
...but this is simply where the pro-sharing folks come back with:
Haven't you watched MTV Cribs? Artists are zillionaires. They won't miss my money.
Except those who aren't zillionaires. But in their case the record company probably wouldn't have given them the money anyway. They should just go on tour and sell t-shirts if they want to make a living.
As an aside, I wonder how many of the "I download their stuff for free, but then I go to their concerts and buy a t-shirt" crowd really do that. Does this mean that they must limit themselves to musical genres which favor live performance and the selling of t-shirts? If, say, Conya Doss isn't playing in their area and doesn't sell t-shirts, are they on the honor system to acquire her music legally if they want it? And what's the ratio... one concert attendance and/or one t-shirt purchase per CD pirated? That sounds like an awful low of concerts and t-shirts you're putting yourself on the hook for... if you have 1,000 songs in your share directory, that's about 100 concerts or 100 t-shirts. That's a couple of grand per year just in shows and t-shirts! Seems easier to just buy the music you want, or better yet, don't say that you're going to attend a concert and buy a shirt when you're really not going to do that.
"At least we have an alternative to spending $20.00 on a cd that contains one good song."
I see this "$20" mentioned a lot on Slashdot. I'm assuming that these are US$, not Australian or Canadian dollars. Maybe I'm really lucky, but I haven't seen a $20 CD in years, not counting the occasional import or value-add version with a bonus DVD or some super-duper recording technology. New CDs are $11 - $14 around where I live, and the price range on the Amazon top ten at this moment is $9.72 to $13.99. Standard shipping is around three bucks, so that's still only $17.00 if you buy the most expensive one on the top ten and don't hit the $25 threshold for free shipping.
Are there places in the United States where CDs are really $20? I'm guessing maybe Alaska or Hawaii, but you see the "$20 CDs" meme on Slashdot often enough that the people who claim these prices can't all be from the Aloha state.
This may seem like a fine point, but remember that the Slashdot audience has a significant percentage who claim that they are forced to resort to piracy because they cannot afford $0.99 per track. For them, $14 for a CD vs. $20 might be a big deal.
BTW, I echo the another poster's sentiment: if you're finding that you're buying a lot of CDs with just one good track, you really need to expand your musical tastes. There's lots of great stuff out there.
"Exactly! I can't believe that a story containing crap like ``you can easily burn a series of songs to a CD, then select the songs on the CD and import them into MP3 format.'' actually got posted to the front page of Slashdot. Sure, editors miss things, but I'd expect the Slashdot editors to know the difference between automated and manual processes, and why one would prefer the former over the latter. Guess I overestimated them."
This happens a lot. A common myopia around here is "I'm a nerd with a lot of time on my hands; ipso facto, everbody else is."
I can very well imagine that if you like tinkering with your PC, you have the desire to share your iTMS-procured content via P2P, or you have both an iPod and a Zen, then it sounds perfectly reasonable to invest your time burning, re-ripping, and labelling all of your content.
The reality is this:
Not everybody is as smart as the average Slashdotter. If a tool can take away a few steps of a process, no matter how trivial those steps are to the average Slashdotter, that tool might sell.
Not everybody has as much time as the average Slashdotter. Many people reading this are in high school or college and are unemcumbered by 40-hour-a-week jobs, spouses, kids, dogs, and all the other things that chip away at an adult's life.
Not everybody is in the same financial situation. See the note above about high school / college -- if you're a starving student, then there's much more of a financial incentive to use P2P vs. simply buying what you want. I have an iPod. My girlfriend has a Zen Vision. I buy what I want on iTunes, and I pay for a Napster subscription for my girlfriend. I don't really care much about the bill at the end of the month, because I don't have to. Most people reading this right now have probably labelled me as a sucker, but the fact remains that there's a lot of people like me out there.
Not everybody enjoys playing with their PCs as much as Slashdotters do. I don't particularly enjoy going to Fry's to buy blank media, burning CDs, ripping them, and so on. Time is at a premium for me.
The important thing is that if you are contemplating selling a product, perhaps your target might not be the coolest people in the world (Slashdotters, of course) but the people who have the money. Conceptualizing a Venn diagram of these two group is, as the math texts say, an exercise left to the reader.
Sending URLs of any sort as Yahoo! IMs has been unreliable for me and my friends for at least a year. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it; some URLs just don't go through. I've noticed it when both parties are using Yahoo! Messenger and also when one or both parties are using Adium, so unless the bug also exists within Adium, it may be a server-side issue.
I've found that preceeding the URL with some random text (I end up typing "click here:" or something similar) addresses the issue. It's only when the IM line consists solely of a URL that it randomly goes into the bit bucket.
"I disagree, and if you doubt this, please by all means head out in to the jungle and attempt to tell the first tiger you see that he has no claim on his prey or his den; as there is no tiger-government to grant him those rights. You might want to bring some weapons though, because he's not going to agree with you either."
Say he does bring a weapon, and shoots the tiger right dead. Or, perhaps another, larger tiger has already beat him to it? Tigers already understand this; a bigger tiger can and will chase another tiger away from their prey or den if it suits them. Law of the jungle. If we think that the tiger has a natural right to property, that's something that we, as humans, are projecting upon the tiger. I doubt very much that the tigers think so.
"Property ownership is as a natural right -- almost all creatures, not just humans, have this sense of what is 'theirs' and what isn't."
My dog's right to property ownership ends when a bigger dog decides that it wants something that my dog has. While creatures other than humans may understand the concept of possessions, they often have little respect for other animals' "rights," whether they are right to property, or right to life.
"You'll note that before copyright existed, many forms of art and publication still existed -- but Plato never enjoyed the privilege of copyright."
And, of course, the Romans didn't have movable type, either. Advancements in technology usually drive the creation of new laws. This may not be where you were going, but the "people did fine without copyright and DRM a thousand years ago" argument either ignores the fact that the technology to copy information has massively improved over the past millennium, or -- worse -- implies that consumers should have the right to use modern technology (P2P, broadband, and so forth) to their advantage, but producers should not.
I may be reading too much into your post, but please correct me if I'm wrong: is your thesis that I don't have the natural right to control how my work is copied, yet you do have the natural right to copy my work?
"There ya go. There is no current try-before-you-buy except Top40 rotations on pop stations, and they play only singles from a fixed rotation. DJs are a thing of the past, so how does one get exposed to new material?"
If somebody wants to use P2P as a "try before you buy" mechanism, then that's fine with me, but they are pulling your leg if they tell you that they have no choice but to use P2P.
Like you, I enjoy a wide range of musical styles, and my current taste is a constantly moving target. My collection of music grows rapidly, is hugely varied, and I rarely make a bad purchase. How do I do it, without using P2P?
I listen to XM. They have channels dedicated to all sorts of stuff, and while some channels do indeed emulate the terrestrial radio style of fixed playlists and tight rotations, many do not. XM's streaming service sounds better (to my ears, anyway) than the uplink, so I put on the headphones while I code, and change stations quite often. When I hear something that I think is worth buying, I get it on the iTMS. If it's not worth buying, I don't buy it -- but I don't P2P it, either.
Speaking of iTMS... they offer dozens of radio stations (it's the bottom link in the first section on the left column) which have a wide variety of eclectic musical styles, much like satellite radio. And, the iTMS will let you hear a 30 second sample of any song. If I'm wondering whether to buy the album, and risk falling prey to the "only one good song" monster, I read reviews from other iTMS users.
As I stated above, I have rarely made a purchase I've regretted.
Nobody is forced to use P2P. "Try before you buy" is a reason to use P2P, but it does not make it a necessity.
"So unless Walgreens is within a few blocks of your home these kids are even more SOL. My guess is that most of the population doesn't live within walking distance of Walgreen."
If a teenager is not capable of either (a) getting to the store or (b) having a parent buy something for them at the store, then they likely don't have an MP3 player, either. Buying an MP3 player is remarkably similar to buying music: if you buy it online, you typically must use a credit card, and if you buy it at the store, you can use a credit card, or cash. Or, you might receive either as a gift.
In short, it's not intrinsically easier for a teenager to obtain an MP3 player than it is for them to obtain legal music. If they manage to get one, they can get the other.
"Where the hell does everyone get the "$20 for 1 good song and a bunch of fillers" thing from."
Why, from the Big Book of Piracy Rationalizations, of course! Here's the TOC:
CDs cost $20.
CDs only have one good song.
All CDs have DRM. All of them.
Artists Don't Make Money Selling CDs
Except The Ones Who Are Really, Really Rich, So It's Still OK
Artist Only Make Money Touring
"If they can't or won't play live, or their musical style is not fit for live performances, then they're just not good artists and don't deserve to be compensated through music sales" And Other Comebacks When People Inform You That You Are Wrong
If An Artist Is In It For The Money, They Aren't Really An Artist: Beethoven, Strauss, Mozart and Others Who Were Fabulously Wealthy
Record Companies Don't Deserve To Make a Profit, and All Record Company Employees Should Work For Free
"The Record Company Provides No Service" : How A Sheet Of Lyrics Is Identical To A CD
The Artists Are Needy: Record Companies Don't Pay Them Enough, So You Don't Have To Pay Them At All
The Artists Are Greedy: They Don't Deserve Their Fame. Piracy Lets You Take Them Down a Notch.
Appendix:
Why Musicians Aren't Deserving Of Your Respect, While Other Artists Are
The Montgomery Freedom March, Gandhi, and P2P: Great Examples of Civil Disobedience
Why The Golden Rule Doesn't Apply When You're Dealing With Musicians
"I Pirate Because I Don't Have Any Money!" : Explaining How You Manage To Pay Your Broadband Bill Each Month, But Music Is Too Expensive
"Artists Did OK For A Thousand Years Without DRM, So Why Do They Need It Now?" : Why YOU Deserve The Benefits of Broadband, P2P, and Other Modern Technology, But Content Creators Don't
"One quick looks shows that Dave Matthews generated a total of $74 million in revenue in 2005. $57 million was from touring."
Correct. Sadly, too many people take data points like this and assume that any given artist makes more money by playing live than selling CDs, or that they like touring. This is a self-serving assumption that gives many people a moral free pass to get music via P2P rather than buying it. You have nailed it exactly -- many people rationalize piracy due to "one quick look" and do not consider that for every musician out there, there is a unique story. I can also take a "quick look" at my music library and find many people whom I know for a fact make zero money touring.
"The only "musicians" who make more from albums than tours are the pop-tarts who can't sell concert tickets because they can't perform live."
Or do not wish to perform live. Artists, just like you and me, are autonomous beings who are capable of making their own decisions. If somebody can't or won't perform live for any reason -- could be medical, could be financial, could be the style of music, or perhaps they simply do not enjoy it -- that is their choice.
"Many successful bands give away their music and clean up on the road. Members of The Grateful Dead didn't go hungry over the last 25 years of their career together."
Again, correct. This is why "treat musicians as human beings and respect their choices, just as you would have them respect yours" works well here. If a jam band likes to give their stuff away and play live concerts, great for them -- copy their music, and see them live (or don't). If a band would rather that you do not pirate their music, then don't.
"And how the hell did you manage to bring Ayn Rand into this?"
The GGP used very Randian language, in an ironic sense. Ayn Rand envisioned dystopias in which one's right to attempt to be successful was directly controlled by another group. She defined "looters," people seeking a free dependency on productive people, and argued that coerced self-sacrifice causes society to distruct. Many Slashdotters describe a musical utopia in which musicians stop worrying so much about making money, and produce their works for the common good. They believe -- as Rand's villians believe -- that even if we take away the incentive to create, the producers will still continue to produce.
Rand was, of course, a complete nut job. Yet the themes she laid out are quite evident whenever one reads a Slashdot discussion regarding piracy and the rights of the artists vs. the desires of P2P enthusiasts.
My apologies as well. Sadly, many people have seriously proposed the notion that all content creators should be happy with the open source / shareware model, and I thought you were serious.
"We have had artists and musicians for a few thousand years now. They produced some pretty good stuff without worrying about DRM."
...and worrying about P2P. It would be nice if we could go back to the honor system... record companies would agree to release stuff without DRM, and teenagers would agree to stop pirating. But this is not likely to happen. It sounds to me that you would like to continue enjoying the benefits of new technology, but you do not wish others to do the same.
Likewise, we all managed to do fine for thousands of years without anti-virus software, anti-spam mechanisms, laws protecting the environment from polluters, laws covering the transport and storage of perishible foods, and speed limits. Just like DRM, society did not need them. But, technology marches on.
"There are some strong examples of recording artists who made very little from selling albums, but got filthy rich by touring."
And there are some strong examples of recording artists who've done well selling albums, without ever giving a single live performance. Why not recognize artists as autonomous human beings and let them decide? There are strong examples of coders writing big, successful products using COBOL, but imagine if somebody tried to take away your right to choose to use C or PHP, while telling you that it's for your own good. You'd tell them to fuck off right proper. Why not treat musicians as you would like to be treated, and respect their choices?
"Then I guess all we need is a committee of "The People" to decide who is allowed to make money, how much they are allowed make, and how they are allowed to make it. That will solve every problem in the world! It'll be a utopia!"
My thoughts exactly. Ayn Rand would love this.
If anybody's surprised at how many Slashdotters are quick to plan such a musical utopia (wherein musicians must give away their stuff for free, not worry about money so much, and rely on live performances), keep in mind that this is simply human nature. The pattern has been repeated over and over. Today, we have a large population with superior technology on their side (P2P fans) who would like to set the rules for a smaller group (content creators). A couple of hundred years ago, it was the native Americans. My ancestors had superior technology, and a desire to take something that wasn't theirs. Clearly, the Indians needed to take their new place in society. First, came the propaganda. We managed to convince ourselves that the Indians didn't really deserve that land, and that we were truly acting in their best interest and that what we were doing was right. After that, it was easy.
I take a more pragmatic approach: pirate that music if you want, but recognize that you are doing it for own self interests. Don't fool yourself into thinking that any given artist wants you to pirate in lieu of paying, or that they make more money playing live than selling CD, or that they want to tour more to accomodate for lost sales.
"Not sure if your sarcasm is all that well thought trough actually... Think ShareWare. I'm not saying people get whoppingly rich of it (usually when a program 'hits', the author suddenly goes PayWare), but for me it works fine."
...I was hoping that you would continue to explain that you are able to make a successful living using the model you propose, but instead you talk about how it works for you as a consumer. It's already established that Slashdotters like shareware and P2P, because it allows them to get free stuff.
I wrote a shareware app once. It was featured in a book. It was included on a CD in a magazine. In short, it was pretty popular for a while. I made a sum total of $100 on it through voluntary donations. That's why I do not write shareware for a living, or otherwise follow the "give stuff away for free and let people pay me if they feel like it" model. In fact, I use the delightfully old-fashioned "make things and sell them at a profit" model.
"I would have gladly parted with 25$ after leaving the movie theatre after seeing the first Matrix movie, but man, did I feel cheated after seeing number 2 & 3, knowing that I had just shelved about 8$ for that piece of crap."
It was widely known at the time that Matrices II and III were crap. Sorry that you paid to see them anyway, but I think that paying more careful attention to reviews, rather than mandating that films be released vi a "payment optional" system is the answer here.
"Sound like a fair system to me. Actually, it should be like that for all media."
Quoth the grandparent: "Really, it's a win-win for everyone. Well, except the artists, but the rest of us get free shit, so fuck them!"
Why don't they do like open-source projects? "Hey, music is free, but please purchase our cool shirt for a small fee in our online store via paypal"
Because most bands are in it for the money. They have to pay their rent, or they are out on the street. They, and only they, are responsible for their economic well-being. I'm aware that many Slashdotters will retort that if somebody's in it for the money, and not the love of music, then they are a businessperson, not an artist. But so be it: there are a lot of "businesspeople" out there with their photos on CDs. Call them what you like, but they still must pay the rent.
I use and contribute to open source projects. Do I make any money on it? Not by a longshot. And neither do the vast majority of others who dabble in open source. Instead, I spend most of my time pursuing a business model that many Slashdotters will tell you is broken: I help make something which is in turn sold for a profit.
Many Slashdotters have an idealized vision of the future of music that relies on artists not caring so much about money as they do now, or at least working harder for that money; e.g. touring constantly rather than relying on selling copies of their recordings. Many people who've contributed to this discussion also think that this is for the artists' own good.
"I would have gladly paid to watch - but it's not on iTunes. Oh well, off to the TorrentMobile, batman! Another idiotic network failing to grasp they could make money by letting me watch the show when I want."
It is the #4 download on iTunes as of Thursday morning. It is also front and center on the "TV Shows" page, presently directly above the free episode of Battlestar Galactica. Shows generally appear on iTunes the day after they air.
"Nowhere does it say that music sales are declining. It says that CD recorded music sales are declining. I haven't bought a music CD in 2 years.. but coincidentaly, I have "bought" my first digital music 2 years ago!"
Good point. My story is similar; little reason to buy CDs now that I can download the tracks I want one by one, and get that instant gratification. Interestingly, last year's year-end reports showed that while CD sales had declined, online sales had almost bridged the gap, making actual YOY retail losses less than 10%. This isn't necessarily much, considering that retail CD prices are also dropping.
Agreed that TFA writeup omits so many details as to be laughable, but I have a feeling that the actual study is pretty sketchy, too.
Partially correct on the Econ 101 (making you in the minority around here); big failure on the reading for comprehension. Sorry you're having a bad day.
"First off, the RIAA members are public corporations, and the big boys are all growing. In fact, they have been growing for quite some time. You have public records to demonstrate this on any finance site you want to visit."
As you know, the vast majority of RIAA members aren't publicly traded. The ones which are, are typically media conglomerates which have their fingers in a lot of pies. It's good if you're a big company and you can offset declining music sales with sales in another business (or layoffs here and there), but not so good if you're a ten-person outfit like most RIAA members. Bully for the bigger companies that can take the pain, but the point of the original FAQ is that music sales are declining.
Slashdot Mirror
"He was knowingly and wilfully helping others to share information representated as bits and those others have decided to share information falling under the copyright law, amongst different information free from copyright."
You are asking people to believe that EliteTorrents wasn't started with the express purpose of facilitating the torrenting of copyrighted movies, games, and music. I suppose that it might be possible to find somebody whom you could initially fool into believing that elitetorrents was intended for sharing linux distros and creative commons content, but even a brief look at the site would destroy any chance of getting somebody to believe that.
This wouldn't even pass the laugh test.
"As far as I can tell, this verdict means we will haul librarians to jail if they put a photocopier into the library: providing others with the means to violate copyright."
As the summary covered, he was nailed for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. "Conspiracy" is the key word. Librarians are generally not involved in conspiracies to commit copyright infringement.
If your response is "well, I see no difference...", keep in mind that this is what we have courts for. If your grandmother, your neighbor, or some random person on the street understands the difference between a librarian and the guy who runs "EliteTorrents," then your average judge will, too.
I'm wondering if you really see no difference, or you're just slippery-sloping for effect. Can you clarify?
"Where exactly is the line here?"
There is no exact line... that's why cases go to court. Every case is different. You can't easily do an If A, Then B, as in your "running a torrent tracker / working in a library" comparison.
"But make sure you lock your door next time, yeah?"
Exactly. The movie companies have cracked down a lot on screeners over the past few years for precisely this reason. Copies are more carefully distributed and various tracking measures are employed.
"They don't actually host the illegal material; just a reference to it."
This is exactly why he was nailed for "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement," and not "copyright infringement."
"If they're going to arrest admins for that, then why are search engines still indexing crack/serial/warez sites?"
Because the search engines are not in a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. EliteTorrents was. This wasn't a Linux distro or creative commons torrents site.
"If you want to get technical about it, the users submitting the torrents are the ones at fault, here."
Those who upload the files are liable to be busted for copyright infringement. As the summary stated, he was nailed for conspiracy to commit. This isn't an RTFA issue here... it's RTFS. My guess is that you're of the assumption that there can only be one wrongdoer, and thus if the users are infringing, then the torrent site operator cannot be charged. It doesn't work that way.
"But if he simply provided the web space for the torrent of copyrighted material to be hosted, and provided the bandwidth for the same, then his liability is somewhat questionable."
This reminds me of those Internet chain letters that state that if you send along a note to the effect of "add me to your mailing list" along with $5, you are providing a service, and not participating in a pyramid scheme. You seem quite certain in your belief that there's no legal liability in running a torrent site, and your post is presently +4 Informative, so many people appear to agree with you. You're still incorrect.
"BitTorrent has a valid use, just as an automobile. When it's misused though, it's not the responsibility of the manufacturer, the used car dealer, or even the gas station!"
Precisely -- that's why they nailed the guy who was misusing the software.
"Why send someone who hasnt harmed anyone to jail?"
I think the thought process is this:
Nobody need worry about feeling the slightest bit bad for more than a few nanoseconds. Pirate all you want -- you're not hurting anybody, and in fact, you're probably helping them.
"Wouldnt getting him to do community work be a better way of dealing with him?"
Yes, then we could all feel free to run a Torrent site. A little community work isn't so bad, is it?
""a lesser-known programmer-infamously more obstinate and far more eccentric than Torvalds-wields a startling amount of control as this revolution's resident enforcer"
I can cover this one. I have personally smelled RMS. It is not pleasant. He is not fond of taking showers, because he does not like water. That is a fact. It is not something I would like said about me, but nonetheless, it is a fact.
From comparing the writing of the two, I would give the +10 sword of obstinacy to RMS. I have not smelled Messr. Torvalds, but at the same time, I have never read reports of fear of water or other abnormal eccentricities possessed by Linus. Somebody please correct me if I'm misinformed.
"However, if you and your 10,000 closest friends end up with copies of the artists song and the artist ends up with ZERO, NADA, begging for food on the street corner when they should have rightfully had at least a few grand then something bad happened and all your weasel wording won't hide that fact."
...but this is simply where the pro-sharing folks come back with:
As an aside, I wonder how many of the "I download their stuff for free, but then I go to their concerts and buy a t-shirt" crowd really do that. Does this mean that they must limit themselves to musical genres which favor live performance and the selling of t-shirts? If, say, Conya Doss isn't playing in their area and doesn't sell t-shirts, are they on the honor system to acquire her music legally if they want it? And what's the ratio... one concert attendance and/or one t-shirt purchase per CD pirated? That sounds like an awful low of concerts and t-shirts you're putting yourself on the hook for... if you have 1,000 songs in your share directory, that's about 100 concerts or 100 t-shirts. That's a couple of grand per year just in shows and t-shirts! Seems easier to just buy the music you want, or better yet, don't say that you're going to attend a concert and buy a shirt when you're really not going to do that.
"At least we have an alternative to spending $20.00 on a cd that contains one good song."
I see this "$20" mentioned a lot on Slashdot. I'm assuming that these are US$, not Australian or Canadian dollars. Maybe I'm really lucky, but I haven't seen a $20 CD in years, not counting the occasional import or value-add version with a bonus DVD or some super-duper recording technology. New CDs are $11 - $14 around where I live, and the price range on the Amazon top ten at this moment is $9.72 to $13.99. Standard shipping is around three bucks, so that's still only $17.00 if you buy the most expensive one on the top ten and don't hit the $25 threshold for free shipping.
Are there places in the United States where CDs are really $20? I'm guessing maybe Alaska or Hawaii, but you see the "$20 CDs" meme on Slashdot often enough that the people who claim these prices can't all be from the Aloha state.
This may seem like a fine point, but remember that the Slashdot audience has a significant percentage who claim that they are forced to resort to piracy because they cannot afford $0.99 per track. For them, $14 for a CD vs. $20 might be a big deal.
BTW, I echo the another poster's sentiment: if you're finding that you're buying a lot of CDs with just one good track, you really need to expand your musical tastes. There's lots of great stuff out there.
"Exactly! I can't believe that a story containing crap like ``you can easily burn a series of songs to a CD, then select the songs on the CD and import them into MP3 format.'' actually got posted to the front page of Slashdot. Sure, editors miss things, but I'd expect the Slashdot editors to know the difference between automated and manual processes, and why one would prefer the former over the latter. Guess I overestimated them."
This happens a lot. A common myopia around here is "I'm a nerd with a lot of time on my hands; ipso facto, everbody else is."
I can very well imagine that if you like tinkering with your PC, you have the desire to share your iTMS-procured content via P2P, or you have both an iPod and a Zen, then it sounds perfectly reasonable to invest your time burning, re-ripping, and labelling all of your content.
The reality is this:
The important thing is that if you are contemplating selling a product, perhaps your target might not be the coolest people in the world (Slashdotters, of course) but the people who have the money. Conceptualizing a Venn diagram of these two group is, as the math texts say, an exercise left to the reader.
Sending URLs of any sort as Yahoo! IMs has been unreliable for me and my friends for at least a year. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it; some URLs just don't go through. I've noticed it when both parties are using Yahoo! Messenger and also when one or both parties are using Adium, so unless the bug also exists within Adium, it may be a server-side issue.
I've found that preceeding the URL with some random text (I end up typing "click here:" or something similar) addresses the issue. It's only when the IM line consists solely of a URL that it randomly goes into the bit bucket.
"I disagree, and if you doubt this, please by all means head out in to the jungle and attempt to tell the first tiger you see that he has no claim on his prey or his den; as there is no tiger-government to grant him those rights. You might want to bring some weapons though, because he's not going to agree with you either."
Say he does bring a weapon, and shoots the tiger right dead. Or, perhaps another, larger tiger has already beat him to it? Tigers already understand this; a bigger tiger can and will chase another tiger away from their prey or den if it suits them. Law of the jungle. If we think that the tiger has a natural right to property, that's something that we, as humans, are projecting upon the tiger. I doubt very much that the tigers think so.
"Property ownership is as a natural right -- almost all creatures, not just humans, have this sense of what is 'theirs' and what isn't."
My dog's right to property ownership ends when a bigger dog decides that it wants something that my dog has. While creatures other than humans may understand the concept of possessions, they often have little respect for other animals' "rights," whether they are right to property, or right to life.
"You'll note that before copyright existed, many forms of art and publication still existed -- but Plato never enjoyed the privilege of copyright."
And, of course, the Romans didn't have movable type, either. Advancements in technology usually drive the creation of new laws. This may not be where you were going, but the "people did fine without copyright and DRM a thousand years ago" argument either ignores the fact that the technology to copy information has massively improved over the past millennium, or -- worse -- implies that consumers should have the right to use modern technology (P2P, broadband, and so forth) to their advantage, but producers should not.
I may be reading too much into your post, but please correct me if I'm wrong: is your thesis that I don't have the natural right to control how my work is copied, yet you do have the natural right to copy my work?
"There ya go. There is no current try-before-you-buy except Top40 rotations on pop stations, and they play only singles from a fixed rotation. DJs are a thing of the past, so how does one get exposed to new material?"
If somebody wants to use P2P as a "try before you buy" mechanism, then that's fine with me, but they are pulling your leg if they tell you that they have no choice but to use P2P.
Like you, I enjoy a wide range of musical styles, and my current taste is a constantly moving target. My collection of music grows rapidly, is hugely varied, and I rarely make a bad purchase. How do I do it, without using P2P?
As I stated above, I have rarely made a purchase I've regretted.
Nobody is forced to use P2P. "Try before you buy" is a reason to use P2P, but it does not make it a necessity.
"So unless Walgreens is within a few blocks of your home these kids are even more SOL. My guess is that most of the population doesn't live within walking distance of Walgreen."
If a teenager is not capable of either (a) getting to the store or (b) having a parent buy something for them at the store, then they likely don't have an MP3 player, either. Buying an MP3 player is remarkably similar to buying music: if you buy it online, you typically must use a credit card, and if you buy it at the store, you can use a credit card, or cash. Or, you might receive either as a gift.
In short, it's not intrinsically easier for a teenager to obtain an MP3 player than it is for them to obtain legal music. If they manage to get one, they can get the other.
"Where the hell does everyone get the "$20 for 1 good song and a bunch of fillers" thing from."
Why, from the Big Book of Piracy Rationalizations, of course! Here's the TOC:
Appendix:
"One quick looks shows that Dave Matthews generated a total of $74 million in revenue in 2005. $57 million was from touring."
Correct. Sadly, too many people take data points like this and assume that any given artist makes more money by playing live than selling CDs, or that they like touring. This is a self-serving assumption that gives many people a moral free pass to get music via P2P rather than buying it. You have nailed it exactly -- many people rationalize piracy due to "one quick look" and do not consider that for every musician out there, there is a unique story. I can also take a "quick look" at my music library and find many people whom I know for a fact make zero money touring.
"The only "musicians" who make more from albums than tours are the pop-tarts who can't sell concert tickets because they can't perform live."
Or do not wish to perform live. Artists, just like you and me, are autonomous beings who are capable of making their own decisions. If somebody can't or won't perform live for any reason -- could be medical, could be financial, could be the style of music, or perhaps they simply do not enjoy it -- that is their choice.
"Many successful bands give away their music and clean up on the road. Members of The Grateful Dead didn't go hungry over the last 25 years of their career together."
Again, correct. This is why "treat musicians as human beings and respect their choices, just as you would have them respect yours" works well here. If a jam band likes to give their stuff away and play live concerts, great for them -- copy their music, and see them live (or don't). If a band would rather that you do not pirate their music, then don't.
"And how the hell did you manage to bring Ayn Rand into this?"
The GGP used very Randian language, in an ironic sense. Ayn Rand envisioned dystopias in which one's right to attempt to be successful was directly controlled by another group. She defined "looters," people seeking a free dependency on productive people, and argued that coerced self-sacrifice causes society to distruct. Many Slashdotters describe a musical utopia in which musicians stop worrying so much about making money, and produce their works for the common good. They believe -- as Rand's villians believe -- that even if we take away the incentive to create, the producers will still continue to produce.
Rand was, of course, a complete nut job. Yet the themes she laid out are quite evident whenever one reads a Slashdot discussion regarding piracy and the rights of the artists vs. the desires of P2P enthusiasts.
"sorry, forgot the [joke] tag"
My apologies as well. Sadly, many people have seriously proposed the notion that all content creators should be happy with the open source / shareware model, and I thought you were serious.
"We have had artists and musicians for a few thousand years now. They produced some pretty good stuff without worrying about DRM."
...and worrying about P2P. It would be nice if we could go back to the honor system... record companies would agree to release stuff without DRM, and teenagers would agree to stop pirating. But this is not likely to happen. It sounds to me that you would like to continue enjoying the benefits of new technology, but you do not wish others to do the same.
Likewise, we all managed to do fine for thousands of years without anti-virus software, anti-spam mechanisms, laws protecting the environment from polluters, laws covering the transport and storage of perishible foods, and speed limits. Just like DRM, society did not need them. But, technology marches on.
"There are some strong examples of recording artists who made very little from selling albums, but got filthy rich by touring."
And there are some strong examples of recording artists who've done well selling albums, without ever giving a single live performance. Why not recognize artists as autonomous human beings and let them decide? There are strong examples of coders writing big, successful products using COBOL, but imagine if somebody tried to take away your right to choose to use C or PHP, while telling you that it's for your own good. You'd tell them to fuck off right proper. Why not treat musicians as you would like to be treated, and respect their choices?
"Then I guess all we need is a committee of "The People" to decide who is allowed to make money, how much they are allowed make, and how they are allowed to make it. That will solve every problem in the world! It'll be a utopia!"
My thoughts exactly. Ayn Rand would love this.
If anybody's surprised at how many Slashdotters are quick to plan such a musical utopia (wherein musicians must give away their stuff for free, not worry about money so much, and rely on live performances), keep in mind that this is simply human nature. The pattern has been repeated over and over. Today, we have a large population with superior technology on their side (P2P fans) who would like to set the rules for a smaller group (content creators). A couple of hundred years ago, it was the native Americans. My ancestors had superior technology, and a desire to take something that wasn't theirs. Clearly, the Indians needed to take their new place in society. First, came the propaganda. We managed to convince ourselves that the Indians didn't really deserve that land, and that we were truly acting in their best interest and that what we were doing was right. After that, it was easy.
I take a more pragmatic approach: pirate that music if you want, but recognize that you are doing it for own self interests. Don't fool yourself into thinking that any given artist wants you to pirate in lieu of paying, or that they make more money playing live than selling CD, or that they want to tour more to accomodate for lost sales.
"Not sure if your sarcasm is all that well thought trough actually... Think ShareWare. I'm not saying people get whoppingly rich of it (usually when a program 'hits', the author suddenly goes PayWare), but for me it works fine."
...I was hoping that you would continue to explain that you are able to make a successful living using the model you propose, but instead you talk about how it works for you as a consumer. It's already established that Slashdotters like shareware and P2P, because it allows them to get free stuff.
I wrote a shareware app once. It was featured in a book. It was included on a CD in a magazine. In short, it was pretty popular for a while. I made a sum total of $100 on it through voluntary donations. That's why I do not write shareware for a living, or otherwise follow the "give stuff away for free and let people pay me if they feel like it" model. In fact, I use the delightfully old-fashioned "make things and sell them at a profit" model.
"I would have gladly parted with 25$ after leaving the movie theatre after seeing the first Matrix movie, but man, did I feel cheated after seeing number 2 & 3, knowing that I had just shelved about 8$ for that piece of crap."
It was widely known at the time that Matrices II and III were crap. Sorry that you paid to see them anyway, but I think that paying more careful attention to reviews, rather than mandating that films be released vi a "payment optional" system is the answer here.
"Sound like a fair system to me. Actually, it should be like that for all media."
Quoth the grandparent: "Really, it's a win-win for everyone. Well, except the artists, but the rest of us get free shit, so fuck them!"
Why don't they do like open-source projects? "Hey, music is free, but please purchase our cool shirt for a small fee in our online store via paypal"
Because most bands are in it for the money. They have to pay their rent, or they are out on the street. They, and only they, are responsible for their economic well-being. I'm aware that many Slashdotters will retort that if somebody's in it for the money, and not the love of music, then they are a businessperson, not an artist. But so be it: there are a lot of "businesspeople" out there with their photos on CDs. Call them what you like, but they still must pay the rent.
I use and contribute to open source projects. Do I make any money on it? Not by a longshot. And neither do the vast majority of others who dabble in open source. Instead, I spend most of my time pursuing a business model that many Slashdotters will tell you is broken: I help make something which is in turn sold for a profit.
Many Slashdotters have an idealized vision of the future of music that relies on artists not caring so much about money as they do now, or at least working harder for that money; e.g. touring constantly rather than relying on selling copies of their recordings. Many people who've contributed to this discussion also think that this is for the artists' own good.
"I would have gladly paid to watch - but it's not on iTunes. Oh well, off to the TorrentMobile, batman! Another idiotic network failing to grasp they could make money by letting me watch the show when I want."
It is the #4 download on iTunes as of Thursday morning. It is also front and center on the "TV Shows" page, presently directly above the free episode of Battlestar Galactica. Shows generally appear on iTunes the day after they air.
"Nowhere does it say that music sales are declining. It says that CD recorded music sales are declining. I haven't bought a music CD in 2 years.. but coincidentaly, I have "bought" my first digital music 2 years ago!"
Good point. My story is similar; little reason to buy CDs now that I can download the tracks I want one by one, and get that instant gratification. Interestingly, last year's year-end reports showed that while CD sales had declined, online sales had almost bridged the gap, making actual YOY retail losses less than 10%. This isn't necessarily much, considering that retail CD prices are also dropping.
Agreed that TFA writeup omits so many details as to be laughable, but I have a feeling that the actual study is pretty sketchy, too.
"economies of scale, fuckwit."
Partially correct on the Econ 101 (making you in the minority around here); big failure on the reading for comprehension. Sorry you're having a bad day.
"First off, the RIAA members are public corporations, and the big boys are all growing. In fact, they have been growing for quite some time. You have public records to demonstrate this on any finance site you want to visit."
As you know, the vast majority of RIAA members aren't publicly traded. The ones which are, are typically media conglomerates which have their fingers in a lot of pies. It's good if you're a big company and you can offset declining music sales with sales in another business (or layoffs here and there), but not so good if you're a ten-person outfit like most RIAA members. Bully for the bigger companies that can take the pain, but the point of the original FAQ is that music sales are declining.