Filesharing Up 10% After RIAA Threatens Users 750
Moldy-Rutabaga writes "Technews says filesharing
has gone up 10% on some sites such as Grokster since the Recording Industry
Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down
and suing users of file-sharing programs. Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster,
commented 'even genocidal litigation can't stop
file sharers'."
They need to study psychology not criminology (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to understand your market if you are to sell your product to it. With the Internet the market has changed, selling a song to the 'net generation is a lot more complex than a flashy video and radio play. This is the X factor that the recording industry hasn't really bothered to look into and I find it very interesting that one of the most successful online music sites is part of a computer company (Apple).
In summary the record labels need to send their marketing and product development guys off to college, study the success of e-commerce and redesign their business model cus CD is after all only a storage medium.
A good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the money they are spending on their lawyers should rather be dumped into iTunes or Rhapsodey like services. How much proof is needed that that is the way to go?
The industry needs to face facts. The full-format physical media isn't going to sustain their business model. With todays need for instant gratification, people want to buy only what they want and they want it now.
Removing dependance on full-length physical media will do a couple of good things. First it will force the industry and artists to put out more quality tracks instead of relying on a couple radio tracks to sell a disc made mostly of filler. Second, the consumer will no longer get stuck with a lousy disc.
Not it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Interpretation:
We don't mind the RIAA making money... just make them get it from somebody except us
AKA, the "not it!" theory.
Davak
Consequences not effective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:2, Insightful)
No such thing as bad publicity... (Score:5, Insightful)
"What? We can do that? Cool. Look, there's links in the article to this software..."
SB
"Genocidal Litigation" nice (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be noted that this contradicts what has been reported in the main stream news, with one cable news channel reporting a 15% drop in file sharing.
(off topic, when I'm posting a new comment to an article, slashdot should include the article on the page where I'm responding so I can reference it)
Re: Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Seriously, if enough people blatanly disobey copyright laws, if there is enough civil disobedience, it almost HAS to force a change in the law. The question, though, is how much is "enough" and do we REALLY need to go through all of the heavy handed law enforcement attempts before this happens?
How many people do you suppose are in prison right now for smoking pot, and how long has that enforcement been going on?
> Can't the law makers see for once, that this is what the PEOPLE want and step up to the plate to do their job?
Most of them will take an interest exactly when they think the number of votes the current arrangement costs them will hurt worse than the number of lobbying dollars an alternative tack would cost them.
Welcome to the lobbyocracy.
Re:Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:5, Insightful)
We spend millions and millions of dollars on the "Drug War" and millions and millions more on holding people in jail because they do/sell drugs...
How many people smoke pot? How many states have made it a minor offense to smoke it? How many people are still being busted for it, having their cars and houses seized for buying a dime bag?
And you think that filesharing is going to continue because people do it? Get real.
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
I could give a shit about Linkin Park, they don't even write thier own music.
Jaysyn
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if you pay full price for the CD, they make more money than if you just bought the two or three good songs off iTunes.
It makes perfect sense to them.
The thing they need to realize is now that the option is there, people will prefer to spend 3 or 4 bucks getting the songs they want off an album rather than pay 15 for castoff songs. And if they don't learn to embrace the internet, they will be left behind by it.
Re:Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:5, Insightful)
eDonkey vs. Kazaa (Score:3, Insightful)
eDonkey doesn't have a central server, and anyone can run a server if they want to. That's more than RIAA can currently(1) handle, I think.
Also, Kazaa seems to be more popular for sharing MP3's.
(1) What I mean is, RIAA can eventually summon enough power to bring down both, but Kazaa would be much easier.
Not surprised by this result (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding the music industry, there is a lot to protest about in my opinion. Prices are too high, quality is questionable, and the RIAA are out of control. What better place to protest and get your points across than downloading music from the internet?
Re:They need to study psychology not criminology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the filetraders are gone, the leechers will be also, because there will be nothing to leech off of.
Why, why, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I'm all for giving the RIAA whatfor, just on principle, but STOP TELLING THEM YOU'RE INFRINGING THEIR COPYRIGHTS (not stealing, as we all know... right?) AND QUIT FLAUNTING THAT YOU'RE NOT AFRAID.
Because they are going to drop the hammer. And they are going to sue some poor college kids and high school kids and ruin their savings and credit and quite possibily their future. This isn't funny. People should be switching to anonymous technologies ASAP. It's like a burgular going back to the same house after having a long conversation with the owner in a coffee shop about how he previously stole from the owner, and he didn't care that the owner now has some nasty looking guard dogs, a moat, and a team of lawyers ready to defend him when he shoots the burgular in "self-defense."
So shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's for your own good.
Re:my parents are spooked... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is marketing, but the RIAA knows the people who scare easiest are the ones with the most to lose.
Eighteen year old kids can afford to lose their life savings, because they can get it back in a week or two.
Re:Free market in action (Score:5, Insightful)
What 'artificial scarcity' are you talking about? There is nothing 'scarce' about music. You can go to any number of internet sites and buy CDs. Try buy.com [buy.com].
The free market is in action. It's just that people would rather pay $0.00 for music rather than anything more than $0.00.
A losing battle (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Artists own the copyrights, but they assign the legal authority to protect the copyrights to the record companies, who, in turn, band together under the guise of the RIAA.
Kinda like a pyramid scheme...
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
If you tell a person that they cannot do something, they are almost certainly going to try to do it.
I think it might have something to do with "It's not gonna happen to me".
Philippines (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:now's the time for PeerGuardian. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can see a small whitelist circle of trust system working, but I can't see a wide system with blacklists managing to fly under RIAA's radar.
Not to give them any ideas. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Artistic integrity is quite obviously not the prime concern for them.
Re:Lazy RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
But on the negative side, how many people back up their data on CD-Rs? I'm sure that most of us have used at least 1-2 CD-Rs to back up data for work, for school or what not. I mean let's be realistic, we're not going to back up that 20GB drive of ours onto floppies and DDS DAT drives are too expensive. So whenever I use a CD-R to back up data I made, part of the cost of that media goes to the RIAA, which is unfair and in my opinion stealing. They're assuming with their large ego's that whenever a CD is burned, they're losing money. I have done some consulting work in the past for copies that use CD-Rs to back up important database files because the unit and the media is still fairly inexpensive. But the media could be even cheaper without this assumption of being guilty of a crime without even committing it yet.
Re:Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:4, Insightful)
This would affect songs, movies, software, books,... anything that is copyrighted.
The net cost to publishers would rise because they would not be able to reliably recover as much of their costs, so the publication of works would become increasingly rarer. Although any material may be freely shared, not all of it would necessarily be easy to find. Fans of artists or authors of obscure works would be entirely out of luck.
I bought CDs once upon a time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Price CDs at $6-10, and I'll think about buying. Remember - they said CD prices would drop lower than tape.
--
+1 Karma Bonus due to RIAA love and low user ID.
Re:Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Critical Mass... So you think that the 60+% of the current adult population that has smoked weed and thinks it is "more or less" harmless than alcohol isn't an important statistic?
Ok, so you don't think that they have organization against the laws? What about groups like NORML [norml.org]? You mean to tell me that they haven't done anything to move towards the legalization of marijuana and growing hemp products?
Read my lips - no new taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you assume he is American?
Poor Grandma. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They need to study psychology not criminology (Score:3, Insightful)
Kids.
They want kids to act irresponsibly, but only in ways that help their bottom line.
Oh well, what goes around comes around.
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
People copying a few CD's here and there are probably just noise to them, akin to passing around cassette tapes not so many years ago. But, when someone starts distributing most of a company's catalog, that's a different matter.
Re:Not surprised by this result (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! Go out to your local record store and stand in front handing out free copies of the latest Metallica album! Spread free music to the world! Remember, you're not "stealing" if you're not taking something physical. That's what civil disobedience is supposed to be about, not hiding behind your ISP like a total pussy.
By the twisted reasoning I'm seeing posted here, I should view the guy I saw selling DVDs of "Finding Nemo" and "The Matrix Reloaded" in the NYC subway last week as a noble hero fighting the scourge of the RIAA.
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:4, Insightful)
I was a little distressed at this idea at first, because I really think that the album can have some holistic worth that is not present in the tracks individually. This is most obviously true in the genre of progressive rock where concept albums are popular. Concept albums are albums in which the songs are tied together by a theme or plot that operates within the lyrics and often also within the music itself as themes are reprised and re-orchestrated in a manner that allows them to be expressive through their relationship to each other as well as their own intrinsic expression. And there are many other non-concept albums out there that stand as complete pictures that would not at all be the same were the tracks to be separated.
As the musical medium has progressed from live to vinyl to magnetic recording to compact discs and now to the intanbible realm of bits, I do feel that we are losing as much as we gain. Im only 19, but I know that back in the days when the Beatles were releasing vinyl, you would buy the album not just for the music, but for the art and other goodies that came along with it, and, perhaps most importantly, because you wanted to support the group and teh ideas they represented. Nowadays music seems to be as disposable as all of our other goods have become. Im horified by the idea that music could become as stripped down as it now is.
However, I fully support the new way that music distribution is going, not because I think that disembodies mp3s are better than vinyl or even compact discs, but because I think that it may challenge artists to create something worthy of our ownership.
I've really been nauseated over and over by the crap that is being pumped out of the music industry lately. From the boy band thing to linkin park and rap rock, music has gone from a medium of expression to a formulaic and mindless medium of moneymaking. This is not entirely true of music, but of most of the junk that teh RIAA is representing in its rampage.
As an artist myself, I look at an album as more than some sort of physical medium for the noise I make. Seeing the album as an arbitrary medium for music is analogous to the functionalist school of AI. The way we are demmanding our music to be served to us shows that we dont see the medium thorugh which we hear or acquire it as important to the music itself. while I do subscribe to a certain brand of functionalism when it comes to AI, I actually believe that the medium is very important when it comes to music. Music is art, and the musical release - the album - should be a work of art. The graphic art and words that come along with a physical album ought to contribute to the music, and the music itself must merit the words and grapgic art that accompany it.
so I am not protesting our lack of concern about how we acquire our music. Rather, I am hoping that the music industry might now be driven to create music that deserves to be embodied and owned in something more corporeal than a digital file.
I guess Im done ranting, but inconclusion, if Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are going to refuse to let peopel download their music because the want to protect the long-playing album, they had better get started creating an album that is not translatable into digital files as easily as they are now. Im talking abotu a different kind of copy-protection here. when more mainstream artists begin releasing albums that are worth more than the sum of their tracks, more people will shell out the bucks to own a piece of art. I'll still have my ipod loaded with music, but I will also have the albums of my favorite artists at home so that I can appreciate them as a whole.
Re:A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some bad things:
1) Instead of having one or two radio friendly songs to get you to buy the album, so you can then hear the more innovative stuff they really want to do, record companies may force bands to only release "radio" friendly music, since that's what sells. Leaving a lack of innovative music.
2) Selling individual songs on the internet could lead to bands being pressured to shorten their songs. If you get 99 cents a song, record companies would rather a 3 minute 3 Meg song to a 10 minute 10 meg song.
3) The death of the "concept" album. If each song has to stand or fall on it's own, what incentive does a band have to release something with a larger scope? No more Darksides, Quadrophenias, Red Headed Strangers, Kind of Blues, etc.
Buying music by the song may be the future of bubblegum pop, but I hope it'll never be the future of truly creative music.
Re:now's the time for PeerGuardian. (Score:2, Insightful)
And what is a known offender? When someone gets hit with a lawsuit, it's not going to say "IP x.x.x.x sends his regards". Somewhere in the log of people that downloaded the offending file(s) is the IP they used, and are now using something completely different.
Blocklists might lock out file hogs, but they'll be useless against the RIAA's collectinators.
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Abbey Road, Dark Side of the Moon. Yeah, those would be by the Beatles and Pink Floyd, artists with great enough talent to produce concept albums.
Tell me (and no fair using google): What album was "Come on Eileen" by Dexy's Midnight Runners released on? Many people like and enjoy the song, but I'd be willing to be almost NO ONE has the album.
Re:How? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free market in action (Score:1, Insightful)
And apparently the track layouts are fixed and you can't mix them from different artists.
And I didn't see what format they were in (MP3, WMA, etc) so I could get them on my computer faster.
And apparently they would have to ship something to me through the MAIL to unlock my tracks (or maybe the thing they ship actually IS the music, what the hell).
Well, you get the point. These are different markets. But I can call BS on your post anyway, I buy LOTS of tracks from the iTunes music store (mostly jazz), and the ones I can't get there, I download over P2P. Occasionally I buy the physical CD afterwards if I like the music. Indie labels always get my business.
I really don't care if it costs $2 or $0.50 or $0.00, I just want it to be AVAILABLE, understand?
PS: have you ever USED the iTunes music store? It's worth 0.99 per track just to be able to quickly find what you need and download it without errors. The stuff on P2P is worth about $0.00 because you have to hunt the stuff down and hope the guy doesn't turn off his computer, etc.
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
Some groups like that have been around for a long time, since the first "copy protected" CDs that won't play in a computer came out, such as Don't Buy CDs. [dontbuycds.org] and Boycott RIAA. [boycott-riaa.com] An industry that presupposes that its customers are freeloaders and thieves doesn't deserve to have any customers.
Genocidal? (Score:5, Insightful)
even genocidal litigation can't stop file sharers
Although I'm not familiar with the case, I don't remember extermination camps being discussed as part of a remedy. The RIAA's efforts are punitive, vengeful, and certainly suicidal, but not genocidal.
I am very much against the RIAA in this affair, but ridiculous exaggeration like this severely damages our ability to make the case to Joe Sixpack.
Re:A good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that they then don't immediately take up a new, cheap distribution method (over the net) means that they're
a) criminaly negligent towards their shareholders for not implementing something which would give their shareholders more money, or
b) scamming us, and have been for years, 'cause that 'distribution' line is total crap and they don't need a new distribution model.
I'd say they can get sued either way
Re:That time is over. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't we just consider the possibility that retailing music is dead?
It was a situation made possible with the fairly recent (in historical terms) invention of printed sheet music, followed by piano rolls, wax cylinders, 78s, 45s, LPs, cassettes, CDs and now DVD-Audio and SuperAudio-CD. That's all happened within a span of 100 years or so. It's no longer needed.
Seriously. Things are invented, manufactured, sold and used. But eventually every thing has a lifespan. At one point in the US, everyone got their heat by burning coal or oil. But the cities built natural gas distribution systems, and everyone converted over to gas. Almost every company that was involved in distributing coal and heating oil went out of business, along with all those companies that made related products. The ones that survived adapted.
What possible harm could come of a return to the historical nature of music as something that belongs to the public?
As for the argument that musicians would starve...the truth is, most are starving now because of the corruption of the record business.
The commercial distribution of music has actually caused there to be fewer musicians alive today than at any prior time in history. Before the advent of recorded music, every family had several musicians. People played their own music for pleasure (ask your grandparents about this). But the record industry has redefined the meaning of music. Now, unless you can sell more than 100,000 copies of a recording, you are a failure.
So, what if we said "Hey, let 'em die!"? What if all of the big 4 giants were allowed to implode? Would people stop making music? Of course not! In fact, in the absence of a gigantic "Industry of Cool" (Lester Bangs' immortal pharse), we'll hear more music.
We could return to the heyday of Napster, when you could message people downloading music from you and suggest other artists in your collection. And then people could download that, and if they like it, buy it from the artist.
Because that's the main thing ignored in all of this - people like artists. But they don't like giant industries. I enjoy sending money directly to an artist. I enjoy buying the CD from the artist at a concert even more - especially as I know the majority of the money will go directly to the artist - (Did you know that if you have a major label contract, if you want to buy copies to sell at your concert from the label, they charge you $11 each? More than they charge stores?)
Sorry, but anyone who has watched more than two episodes of "Behind The Music" will have no sympathy for the giant labels. Screw 'em!
Re:A bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why I think indie labels are seeing such growth. They allow the artists to decide what is art, not some marketing survey. The RIAA's real problem is the RIAA.
Are you claiming a moral right to copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideas can't be owned; they can simply be monopolized to a certain extent by government fiat. But that hardly constitutes a moral imperative.
Let me put it another way.
As a consumer, I can listen to the radio. I can tape songs off the radio. I can take that tape and burn it to a CD. That's apparently okay. But if I add "Internet" in that chain of events, then its not okay, even though the end result is the same.
Statistic doesn't mean anything (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free market in action (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, since the government has decided that other (harmless) acts I take part in are illegal (smoking weed for example), I am very accustomed to breaking the law and consider it part of my life here in the United States. I don't flinch at it very much. When people wonder why so many break the law in the US, I always try to remind them that a big part of this is because we have so many laws.
Re: Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pot as a recreational drug frightens government types particularly because it's very difficult to control. It would be hard to tax and regulate if it were made legal. Any pothead will tell you they'd have their patch growing in a minute, and let's face it, there wouldn't end up being much of a commercial market.
Umm... you don't understand "artificial scarcity". (Score:1, Insightful)
The music on Metallica's new album is not intrinsically or naturally a scarce resource. It is in fact an unlimited resource. I can, at no (or insignificant) cost to myself, meet an unlimited demand for this particular resource.
However, copyright law prevents me from meeting an unlimited demand for this resource.
There are people who would like to have a copy of this music, but who are not willing to pay the price associated with it at a retail store. If it were not for copyright law, I could satisfy this demand.
Because this scarcity is not intrinsic or natural to the resource in question, it is an "artificial" scarcity.
The intent of causing artificial scarcity of a resource is either to increase the market value of the resource, or to regulate the resource for broader social reasons.
The meager (at best) potential benefits of copyright on artistic works do not in our present society warrant its continued status as law.
The majority of those who truly have the potential to advance the arts will do so fully or to a sufficiently acceptable degree whether or not they are granted monopolistic control of the distribution of their work.
The benefit of the few who will not or who will not so greatly, is outweighed by the free mixing and distribution of ideas that will come about in our society in which it is becoming increasingly true that everyone, not just a select few, are creators and innovators (and yes, you twit pisser, producing a derivative work is being creative and innovative).
The arts are not advanced to a greater extent because artists are able to indulge in luxuries daily that cost more than the average worker makes in a week.
That Mr. Pfuckshisowndiddy can throw millions around like pocket change is not a cause that we as a society have an obligation to advance.
Just the opposite: we have an obligation to take his wealth up to the point that were we to take any more he would not able to advance the greater good as much as he has, and instead redistribute that wealth to those who will innovate, create, and advance the greater good.
For his contributions, Mr. Pfuckshisowndiddy deserves an annual income of about $22,000 USD, and not a cent more.
the return of sneaker-net (Score:3, Insightful)
If the RIAA gets it's way... which is a distinct possibility.... we will see 2 things happen amongst traders.
First will come the file-trading encrupted and distribiuted networking solutions... such as freenet.... where communications will be inherently anonymous and highly hidden... where the data will be spread across the network in a simlar fashion to RAID... keeping them availble and at the same time not dependant upon one users machine.... imagine if everyone simply gave 40 megs of space to a netowkr of millions of users to be shared out RAID style....
the second thing we'll see is the advent and return of sneaker-net... with so many small and highly portable devices that store data on nearly everyone.... the ease of getting songs at your buddies house or work or in the park will become more and more prevelant. Although not easy with the iPod right now.... i have a distinct feeling it will be shortly.
RIAA - shoots self in foot again (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when mp3's were only found on IRC or FTP server or crappy porn filled mp3 warez sites or college network shares. the Dimond RIO suit put mp3 in the spotlight and the napster lawsuit made mp3 a household name. They may will according to the law, but thats all they are winning.
Since when? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
When has it become our duty as US citizens to make sure that any business model succeeds? If a business cannot adapt its business model for each new generation, then it deserves to go down in flames. The sad thing is that something like the above could happen. The dirty RIAA/MPAA with their dirty money will bribe the prostitutes of congress and have them pass a bill that allows them to tax all internet usage or all cd burner purchases. As if the only possible reasons we dirty citizens use the internet or buy a cd burner is to steal their crapppy music. This crap makes me mad.
traditional usage has changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody always has done it, up to now, legally.
Any musician and anyone else serious about music who's older than Britney Spears' generation grew up taping off the radio and swapping tapes. This was how people swapped music files before the Internet and personal computers.
Do any of us feel guilty about STEALING MUSIC and being PIRATES!!!
Of course not, tapes effectively extended the range of radio broadcast promotion of albums, i.e. taping songs off the radio helped sell albums, just as P2P and Internet radio helps sell CDs now.
The only difference between fileswapping and taping is that the RIAA paid Congress to make swapping songs via Internet illegal.
If you believe differently, you have been suckered by RIAA propaganda.
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
The principle being greed.
Re:They need to study psychology not criminology (Score:4, Insightful)
The full implications of this new medium are still being worked out with many approaches being tested. Perhaps the most successful approach for exploitation and profit has not been precisely conceived yet. My point of view is that using litigation to lawyer it away misses the meaning of the sea change, and looks like an expensive way to sell less product. I also think that recording artists and/or their management and lawyers who insist on a buy it all or nothing approach are also likely to be left behind.
The more I've thought about this over the past few weeks, the more I feel we could be on the verge of a pop explosion centered around, as the great pop explosions of the past, the single. It is so much easier to be brilliant for 3:35 than for 65:13.
Re:Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are lobbies for the prison guard unions fighting agaist leagal pot BECAUSE so many people are put in jair for insanely long periods of time for haveing a little baggy of pot. Its all about money and who gets the money from a drug war.
Frank Zappa Said it Best (Go Buy Joe's Garage!) (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how a guy who's been dead for 10 years can still be on topic...
Re:Slippery slope when wet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Society in the past has made an agreement to give the author time to earn money on his or her creative work. There were assumptions about who the author might be and what a reasonable amount of time might be.
That's a reasonable agreement, and many artists - musicians, authors, directors, etc - have created entirely new works and made them available on the understanding that this agreement stands.
No sane artist is going to claim a completely new work. There is give and take, and in some cases outright theft. Beyond that, the copyright laws are suppose to release works into the public domain on a regular basis so the future artists can create works targeted to new generations.
This is an important and important process or recycling. For example, there is little original in Harry Potter. It is an effective recycling of ideas created by a British writer of other British writers and targeted to the a new generation of children. The same thing is true for Madonna, which just repackaged Blondie's look (and feel) for a new set of teenagers.
Even when one comes up with the argument that there are laws that "no longer represent the majority of the people", it strikes me as bogus to suggest that this immediately makes a law unjust
So it is not just a matter of the people thinking that the laws are wrong. I agree that such a thing is necessary, but not sufficient condition. The real issue is the copyright laws have changed significantly enough so they may not be fair to authors or customers. First, we are being asked to accept that a corporation can be the 'artist.' Though many would say that this is just a natural extension of the law, I think it hurts the true artist. Despite popular opinion, a corporation is not a person, it does not create art, and does not promote creativity. Humans or groups of unincorporated humans are those we wish to encourage to create works, not fictional entities. Second, we are being asked to rescind the requirement that old work go back into the public domain so they can be retooled to new generations. The fact that Disney has made it's fortune, and continues to make it's fortune, doing this is well documented. The fact is that Disney is not the creative, or financial powerhouse, it used to be. If the U.S. needs anything it is a financial powerhouse like Disney used to be. Where is this company going to be if the U.S. has copyright laws that prohibit the use of old work into perpetuity? Outside the U.S., of course, helping another country's economy.
Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)
If easily fabricated evidence such as this can get someone in jail, how come I can't just say "Person x shot at me with a gun -- sorry, the finger prints have been wiped off and the room where he shot me demolished".
Seems to me a judge would need more than a screenshot and some pirate files coming from the accuser to blame you. Otherwise, this could make a very good insurance scandal: "Yeah, he stole the cash from the safe! See, I'm missing it! And I have his name and address! That should be enough! Now gimme my money!"
response to more RIAA propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
Find a better place than RIAA propaganda to get your info.
You are of course, simply wrong to the point where nothing you say about the business of music can be taken seriously. The case for every song on commercial radio being a result of payola can be considered established fact.
BTW, the major labels are all in major financial trouble, and paying for this part of promotion is part of the reason. Better cash your paycheck quickly.
No guarantee on data availability. I simply keyword-searched on my personal database on payola. If any URLs don't work, Google is even your friend. Keyword search on "payola".
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/25/pfp_co ngress/
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/25/eagle_ eye/
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/05/24/1515236.shtm l?tid=141
http://features.slashdot.org/features/01/06/05/103 4234.shtml?tid=141
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/06/25/1316255.shtm l?tid=141
http://www.latimes.com/cgi-bin/slwebcli?DBLIST=lt0 1&DOCNUM=41999&TEMPLATE=9002&DBPUB=20010529KFHQeKB S&QDesc=Logs%20Link%20Payments%20With%20Radio%20Ai rplay
I've never seen a pro-RIAA posting on Slashdot.
THAT'S WHAT THE PREVIEW BUTTON IS FOR. READ YOUR POSTS BEFORE POSTING.
There's a serious issue here concerning the rights of artists.
Only in your mind, and only in the imagination of RIAA publicists. Eminem's latest album was completely uploaded to the Net as MP3? His album went straight to #1. Please explain to him in public how his rights were violated by EVIL PIRATES.
There is NO convincing evidence anywhere that P2P displaces record sales.
As for your example, Isaac Asimov, too bad he never saw the Baen Free Library [baen.com]. Out of print science fiction books have been uploaded by several name authors to the library, betting that it would expand the sales of current titles. NO DRM, just zipfiles you can turn into .RTFs or html pages.
The experiment has been a success, and given Asimov's intelligence, we can be sure that if he were living today, he'd have his back-issue stuff either there or somewhere similar under his control.
Your copyright strawman doesn't cut any ice with me, I'm a published writer and have applied for more than one patent, and know far more about the law in this area than you will ever need to know. I certainly don't support getting rid of copyright.
While there are some people here who want to do away with it, most here would be content with reform, i.e. changing current law to add mandatory Internet licensing to mandatory broadcast licensing, so anyone who broadcasts via the Net for commercial purposes has to pay a royalty to songwriters, collected via Performers Rights Societies like ASCAP and BMI. (and tracked via the same people who do SoundScan)
Selling music is about promotion, and the RIAA version of the story is simply an attempt to restrict mass distribution of music promtional materials to channels like radio they can buy control of.
Thanks to your RIAA buddies, I had a hell of a time getting the music tracks of an independent artist I'm personally working with onto Kazaa for fear of attack by the thugs you either work for or even stupider, are working for free of charge.
As for your imaginary "moral obligation", our moral obligation to artists is buy from them if we like their work. We have NO moral obligation to RIAA labels and no amount of your whining can make one. Perhaps you will buy a major label record because a label ad says to. Nobody else will.
Distributing broadcast-quality tracks of an artists' work simply provides them with free promotional exposure. If you think there's something immoral about someone hearing a track off an album that a record company didn't pay for radio time or the bandwidth before, you're a dumb shit.
Re:What do you mean I'm breaking the law? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your comments ignore the issue this article was meant to emphasize. Please, educate the uninformed that copyright holders have rights. That's perfectly appropriate. But, also educate them that the holders of copyrights aren't necessarily the people who wrote the material that was copyrighted, as well. Make sure you let them know the RIAA represents the interests of organizations that exploit artists for 95% or so of their rights for the works they create for commercial gain for very, very long periods of time in the interests of making money.
What the RIAA is doing is quite legal. But, what they've done to gain those copyrights is morally quite questionable. Artists create out of compulsion; not of commercial aspiration. Unfortunately, the wheels of commerce usurp that product to the exclusion of the creator and, while they're legally justified in suing consumers for gaining access to that content outside the distribution channels they concocted for that purpose, they _must_ come to terms with the reality that the consumer is now wise to what they've done to the creators of those legal assets.
Educate the consumer as to the law, sure... But, please give the proceeds to those who create the art, or you're supporting the system to the demise of those for which the system was originally set up. You need to teach that in your college class...
Re:Mod Parent up!!!-Artistic rape. (Score:3, Insightful)
Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get it? Try this.
Develop a function that allows others to "see" a max of 50 songs at a time per user. The user could have thousands of songs but only 50 would be viewable at any given time. Set the refresh to something like 60 seconds... thus obfuscating the difference between the small and large fish by making it difficult to determine how many songs a user truly has.
If I knew how to code, I'd do it myself
even bad press is good press ... (Score:2, Insightful)
They obviously figured out that P2P filesharing has caused revenues to go up. However, they wear the veil of ignorance and claim that filesharing is evil and causes revenue loss -- all the while embezzling money and otherwise squandering it, to make the bottom line look reduced to support their phony claims.
All this buzz around P2P filesharing and how easy it is to get pirated music for free causes people who would not normally try such a thing, to go out and try it -- repetetive "advertising" of these filesharing networks in the form of headline news almost daily.
RIAA can then pocket even more money once the viral marketing takes off and they need to spend less money on actual marketing and promotion efforts. Just hire a few more lawyers to keep the news buzz going and get rid of the marketing folks
-- Dossy
Re:How? (Score:2, Insightful)
The essence of it is very powerful (even if I didn't remember the exact wording).
I don't like the idea of people "stealing" music, and personally find it to be a pain in the ass to find decent tracks, so I usually end up on iTunes or just go buy the CD... but I also don't like the idea that some poor shmoe is out there trying to defend her/himself against legal action from the RIAA because s/he downloaded some songs. His/her life gets wrecked because s/he has to fork over thousands in legal fees, spend days in court, loses his/her job, house, car, whatever...
I am "File Trader". Hear me cough! (Score:1, Insightful)
With what? The money they didn't spend? Or the vote they never used to keep the political process balanced?
Call me when you guys have real teeth.
Re:What are you smoking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps I should make a disclosure here. I've memorized that clause. I'm working very hard towards practicing copyright law in a couple of years. I do know the foundational materials, the theory, all that jazz. But I appreciate the rhetorical device.
By giving people control over what they produce and, critically, the ability to make a living from it, you encourage them to create new and wonderful things.
But you're not quite through. You're so close. You ought to be able to smell it. But there's one step left. What do you do when those new and wonderful things are there? What's the purpose of getting them? How does their mere existence promote the progress of science? (N.B. if you read the clause carefully, and recall the 18th century meaning of words, you will note that copyright is intended to promote science, or as we would now say, knowledge. The 'useful arts' refers to the patent half of the clause, and refers to what we now might call practical technology)
We say to artists that if they produce new and wonderful things, we will give them control of that content. It is therefore wrong for us to remove that control, or expect them not to protest and not to take legal action when individuals remove that control, and do so in the most extreme way - redistributing their content, non-consensually, to millions of strangers.
Naw, not really. Congress can decide to raise the price of postage to $20 for a postcard if they like. It's done at their discretion. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with changing the rules on artists.
Because no matter WHAT copyright laws exist, those laws will usually be better for artists, and the public, in sum, than not having them at all would be. And that's a viable alternative too. Congress can always decide there shouldn't be any copyrights. And in the right circumstances, it would be the right decision to make as well.
The few cases where artists and the public in aggregate will be worse off with copyright than without it are, ironically, when copyright is at its strongest. A few artists will thrive; they'll basically have a license to print money. But most will suffer since the ogliarchy won't much care for the competition. And the public will be even worse off.
As for protest, I don't have a problem with that. I just don't care for their arguments, unless that argument is merely that the optimal point -- optimal for everyone -- of the copyright system lies elsewhere. Anything else would be arguing irrelevancies.
Remember: we didn't say that we'd give artists control in exchange for them creating new things. We said we would when it was a good thing for us. That I'll stand by. But we're the judges.
So far few are proposing fixes to copyrights beyond seriously disembowling it and removing the rights of artists completely.
Ok.
Without delving too deeply into the details -- I'm still thinking about some of the nitty gritty music and video licensing issues -- I'd say this:
5 year term; renewable five times. Except software, designs, and masks, which aren't renewable at all. Fees for renewals would likely be pegged to gross profits to raise revenue for the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office (see below for some uses of that money)
Existing terms would be retroactively shortened to fit into the new scheme.
Strict formality requirements in order to get a copyright at all; a "common law" copyright (really statutory, but based on the old ones) might exist for some works, but wouldn't be safe to rely upon, since I'd want to promote publishing. This would include strict deposit and disclosure requirements to eliminate protection on copyrighted works other than copyrights, e.g. trade secrets. So, for example, software would all be disclosed source, though still copyrighted.
Acts contrary to the ultimate public domaining, and fair uses would be grounds for voiding copyright; no copy
about 20% premium in the uk (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop stealing. (Score:3, Insightful)
When you download it for free, the data may contain Without Me, but it could also contain anything else, and at any quality. If you were to buy it, you would (I would think) be buying the assurance that the file you download will have the song you wanted, at a high quality level.