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'."
Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:5, Interesting)
How? (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly do they go about finding these people? It's not like they openly give out their names on things like KaZaa?
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
-uso.
Pointless Statistic (Score:5, Interesting)
Jolyon
Is copyright going the way of prohibition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Artists Against iTunes (Score:5, Interesting)
"Artists hold out on iTunes on principle
Reuters News Service
LOS ANGELES -- The Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica are refusing to make their music available as individual downloads on Apple Computer's iTunes online music store.
That move comes in response to Apple's decision to allow users to buy single tracks and is intended to protect the future of the long-playing album, said Mark Reiter of Q Prime Management Co., which manages the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica and several other artists.
Green Day and Linkin Park, according to a source familiar with the situation, have also refused to make their songs available as individual downloads on the Apple service, which has sold over 5 million songs. "
-- Hey
Idiots.
Re:Not it! (Score:5, Interesting)
They collect quite a lot of funds in fact, they even collect money for radio play of unsigned acts and these artists receive nothing.
Above info collected from:
Here [boycott-riaa.com]
Re:Haha! (Score:2, Interesting)
What do you think: EDonkey or Kazaa?
Free market in action (Score:5, Interesting)
This is free market in action. The artificial scarcity created by government regulation (copyright) is way out of touch with the reality so the free market, even when it has to operate as a black market, will take care of the customer demand.
What needs to happen is serious consideration of how the supply can be kept running under these circumstances. One solution would be to allow unlimited music distribution as long as you don't charge any money for it. If the commercial exploitation of copyrighted material would still be an exclusive right of the copyright holder, I believe there is a big market where the copyright holder can make good profit. This would pretty much legalize the current practise where individual people can trade music online freely while the commercial distributors (e.g. CD sales) would have to pay.
Re:How? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes for now except once they get done with the filetraders then I can see them starting after the leechers with download bots recording the IP addresses of leechers too.
Lazy RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah right, so you can't properly secure your own cd's or whatever, so go ahead and put a tax on internet access and cd burner's to make up losses because of your own incompetence. And as we all know, no one uses CD Burners for say....backups, or transferring legitimate files from one person to another. No one uses the internet to do do legitament things like research. So of course everyone should Pay the RIAA and help them. Never mind that if they really want to stop piracy they should be better protecting their own media.
The worst thing is that the RIAA probably has enough influence in Washington to pull something like this off!! What's next, Microsoft builds an internet monitoring meter into windows to send usage statistics to the government so they can bill you monthly. Then Linux is outlawed for not having the US government metering package?
I don't understand something... (Score:5, Interesting)
The ISP is bound by law to inform the user, who has the right, under penalty of perjury, to deny that he/she is offering infringing material.
Now it gets interesting.
If the user denies that he/she has been sharing, the ISP must inform the copyright owner, and that copyright owner has a limited amount of time during which it MUST bring suit against the alleged infringer, or the ISP MUST restore access.
So, someone please tell me how the RIAA has the right to sue, since they own no copyrights?
Also, if every person sued denies they are sharing, forcing the actual copyright holder to bring suit, wouldn't the sheer weight of litigation costs make this a really bad strategy?
Re:A good thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact eventually "track" may become a carryover from an earlier time, sort of like "album." Has anyone younger than me ever seen a real album, with half-a-dozen sleeves, each of which contains a 10" 78 RPM record?
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
And even worse, what about those who have filenames that are similar but not exactly the same as commerical music? They're going to have to download every song they can to verify it, otherwise it will be tossed out of court (and on 56K, that can be hours if not days).
Re:Artists Against iTunes (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah...and how many _albums_ have you found that that's the case for since file sharing came about? I can think of *maybe* 3 or 4 complete albums released in the last 5-6 years that I would listen to in full.
I bought those though.
Something to think about... (Score:3, Interesting)
6/15 knew what the RIAA was.
1/15 knew about any RIAA lawsuits.
7/15 became/at least acted concerned when told about the lawsuits, and the potential for themselves to be sued.
The numbers are way too low to really mean anything, but it seems to follow that just MAYBE people don't act like they care because they really don't know. We'll see what happens when the RIAA actually gets a file sharer in court.
Downloaded Music has NO copyright notice (Score:2, Interesting)
Use e-Mule : No central leech points! (Score:4, Interesting)
I dunno if somebody knows about e-Mule, but this exellent P2P proggy allows one to leech blocks from different sources, even when a source itself does not have the complete file yet. So these sources are in effect not necessarily sharing media, just parts of it.
The only thing e-Mule now needs is a tedency to distribute complete files over different parts of the network, so that very few access points share the complete file. Once the file is downloaded, e-Mule then just shares parts of it, but never the complete file. Depending on the required parts, the shared parts may even vary over time.
Seems like the perfect nightmare for any DMCA groupie-lawyer to me.
Re:A good thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoah, cowboy! You're talking about benefits *to the consumer*. When was that ever the issue? If it was then CDs would cost $3.99 and there wouldn't be such an incentive to waste time on KaZaA.
You've got to put in terms of benefit to the recording industry if they're ever going to change their minds.
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:1, Interesting)
I never had heard of napster if it wasn't for the legal cases. And then those same cases told me you could also download movies with it and how.
Now I'm a kazaa addict.
Re:Genocidal?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:eDonkey vs. Kazaa (Score:4, Interesting)
IPv6 (Score:1, Interesting)
With IPv6, it would increase RIAA's work 3 fold.
Re:How? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask your parents... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they did (almost certainly), ask them if they felt guilty and ashamed about stealing FROM ARTISTS?
Tell them that filesharing is simply doing the same thing using your computer to grab them from P2P instead of the radio and your hard drive instead of a tape recorder.
Tell them the only difference between what they did and "filesharing" is that the RIAA bribed a bunch of politicians to declare the digital version is illegal and that the tape version is explicitly legal.
What's important here isn't that this changes the law, but to let them know what you're doing is merely illegal, not wrong.
If your parents can't tell the difference. . . you've got some unpleasant time to do before you leave home, good luck.
This is all part of their plan... (Score:2, Interesting)
What it will do is give them more arguments when lobbying Congress. "See, we have done all we could. Our businesses will die unless you pass more laws for us." If you read the Morpheus dismissal order, that is exactly what the judge argued for. He basically complained that his hands were tied and that Congress should pass some laws so he can do something about it.
Why have they never mentioned usenet? Because they can't stop usenet file sharing unless they are allowed to cancel files and the isps are forced to abide.
Similarly, they cannot stop p2p unless they are somehow allowed to filter an isps traffic and put filesharers offline without wasting time on due process (which applies only to government action, not RIAA action).
Expect more assaults on the free flow of information. The question is not whether they will succeed under the current paradigm. (They can't.)
The question is whether they can get Congress to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Hopefully they can't.)
In the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd expect people in the UK to be dealt with by UK law, just as large scale UK video pirates were. Large scale video piracy was stopped by basically targetting the big pirates and giving them nowhere to advertise their wares either. Now its a hand to hand market or dodgy street market stalls and that keep the volume of piracy under control
As regards file names - given a few downloads that are verified as pirate and the relevant paperwork done and affidavits filed I suspect the rest would be resolved by seizing the equipment in question and seeing what else is on it.
I approve of the RIAA approach this time, its the first sane thing they've done for a long time. Go after the bigger copiers, instead of harassing everyone, screwing up the law and building unusable systems actually go after the criminals for once.
What should be the real limits on "fair use" is another debate, but it will be a lot easier to have when large scale copying of copyright works is under control, and also may actually go back to the old ways - as video has where small scale copying/lending isnt a threat, helps everyone and the law is conveniently ignored by all parties
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:5, Interesting)
Anonymous P2P filesharing (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is 2,048 bit like hushmail uses, upgrade this
and make it a encryption module that can be adapted as
further needed in the future
Disregard the NSA request for Keys, andMake it a dynamic server model . All ppl are servers, but only for a short random while,
and then the duty is passed
The servers start building a dynamic remap, then deliver the
time for remap and reassign after the hand off and receive
servers have negotiated and checked the links for stability
and reliability
Hide the Ip addresses, and use a disassociated means of
node identification . IP address will get you connected to
a Dynamic DNS that is floating on foreign hosted servers
in countries that care not a wit for the RIAA or what it wants
Design it as a many tentacled beast, with polymorphic traits
like a polymorphic virus . Use multi-casting to update server
lists and keep the nodes informed
Use dummy data to send the fox chasing the fake hound
the wild goose chase . Put pieces of the data in certain
packets, and those certain packets change as the network
morphs in the course of the day . Like was preposed for
Dark Angel 2000
Clients will dynamically re-route, and shift their registration
info all encrypted, and IP addresses are masked/encrypted when
used, and are used as little as possible
Idle process similar to what the SETI@home screen saver uses
could determine the best machines, and use them to build
an 'A' list of nodes, but rotate that responsibility as to not
lock it in to certain machines, ie. keep it moving
So with a encrypted structure by a random shifting tree
they would have a "damn" hard time tracing it if all the
packets themselves were coded
A whitelist is possible, but could be compromised by a member
being caught thru other means, ie. vindictive significant other
Then what was a good node could be used to reverse engineer it,
and listen to the network
So it has to be designed so that those on the network themselves
could monitor, but it changes quickly, and changes in ways
that are not straight forward easily understood, A network chameleon of sorts
Only the master chameleon could "hope" to understand the network,
but the very fact of how fast it changed would make it a daunting
if not overwhelming task . If someone who had the idea of
"Dark Angel 2000" could apply it to peer 2 peer it could happen
Well enough day dreaming , hopefully some very bright mind
will see this and help it or a variant there of on its way
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
What do you mean I'm breaking the law? (Score:2, Interesting)
Over the course of the last 5 semesters, it's been pretty clear that a good deal of those sampled have no real concept of what copyright is. I mean they understand it's there to protect the rights of the artist / creator but that's about the extent of it. Of course, that much is probably no big surprise. What is surprising is that many of these students believe it's perfectly legal to make a copy of your friend's CD/DVD/Video game/Microsoft Office CD as long as you have no intent to sell or distribute it. Of course some of that falls more under breaking your EULA than copyright, but the fact remains, the ethics of copying doesn't even apply here since they think it's perfectly legal to begin with.
At any rate, I think a lot of people are going to be in for a big wakeup call when the RIAA throws down the hammer. A good sampling of their "victims" might not even be aware that they're actually breaking any laws.
Re:Chillean Sea Bass... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Cayman Islands it is legal to have sea turtle products including meat and shells. They also farm sea turtles to both sell the products and preserve the species. By the way turtle stew is delicious. Too bad the US would not permit me to bring a shell back.
If only they would allow the gulf coast to legaly farm and sell sea turtle products, they would be much more common. Possibly as common as a Big Mac (tm).
Making it illegal to own makes raising and selling for a profit impossible. Poaching kills the wild population. So does taking the habitat for legal profitable other uses of the land. (lots of beef is raised for profit) Threatened species becomes more threatened. Over hunting wild populations should be limited. Farming and selling should be legal.
Ever bought farm raised salmon? Could Chillean Sea Bass be profitably farmed with a percentage returned to the wild?
Raising passenger pigeons for the hat industry instead of hunting them could have saved it from extinction.
Obligatory link to the turtle farm. Watch the web cams on this farm here
http://www.turtle.ky/video.htm
Here is a cut and paste with some stats on the release program.
The Farm's captive breeding colony now produces an average of 45,000 eggs per year. Approximately eight thousand hatchlings are needed each year to satisfy current production goals. Excess hatchlings are designated for tagging and release. Over 28,000 hatchlings and yearlings have been released into the waters surrounding the Cayman Islands.
Re:What do you mean I'm breaking the law? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually the exploitation of the artist is always a key factor in our discussion. Especially since the bulk of these students are (or plan to be) artists as well. So no, I'm not force-feeding anyone the idea of bending down (or is it over?) and obeying the almighty RIAA. I'm just making them aware of the law - both the good and bad aspects of it.
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How? (Score:2, Interesting)
Lots of cafe's have open proxies (or you can set one up there, yourself), I think.
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:5, Interesting)
His testing of his hypothesis is flawed. He claims that clicking that link has to do with people wanting to open every door and see everything that is concealed from them. Though his hypothesis may well be right and may even be true in a lot of cases, he's still getting polluted data. I didn't click on the link because it said "do not click on this link", I clicked on it because every time I've seen "do not click on this link" it was because somebody was trying to use reverse psychology to get more attention. Frankly, I wouldn't have clicked on it if had said "members only". I wouldn't have even cared, that that would have flown right in the fac eof his hypothesis.
I'm not sure if I'm communicating my idea too clearly or not. So here's a test that I think would help filter out the noise: password protect the next page and watch how hard people try to figure out the password.
Now, as for the RIAA (gotta drag myself back on topic here), I do not believe the growth is due in part to people feeling like they're 'bad-boys' about it. Rather, I believe it is a mixture of reasons. Two pop into mind. 1.) Lots of people flipping off the RIAA and saying "no, if you're going to be like this, then I'll hurt you in the way that I know best." and 2.) I better get what I can while I can.
As for Napster's growth (I realize it was the parent poster and not you that said this), I think that had more to do with people being made aware of it than anything else.
In any case, I'm a little off-topic. Sorry about that. The RIAA has been way off in understanding the psychology of its customers, and yes that includes file swappers too. Suing individual users will only cause music trading to evolve and resist. Sooner or later, it'll be impossible to know who's downloading what.
The funny thing is that I think this movement can outlive the RIAA's abilities to sue it. I can't remebmer the last time I've thought that about the little guy.
Legal file swapping? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:response to more RIAA propaganda (Score:3, Interesting)
You have a moral obligation to use works of art under the reasonable conditions set by the artists.
I find this statement (admittedly taken out of context) quite fascinating. I'm trying to think of any historically relevant philosopher of morality that has ever suggested any sort of moral obligation even remotely like this, and am coming up empty. Yet this is the result of the *AA advertising binge: the people of the world have come to believe that whatever their television tells them is not just the law, but morally imperative.
I'm a Christian, and I'm trying to think, as an example, what Biblical imperatives I am violating when I rip a CD and give it to a friend. "No stealing" is the obvious one, but it is quite difficult for me to equate stealing (depriving another of something) and duplicating (making a copy of something)---they are such different activities on the face of it! I am ripping a CD I paid for, after all: I'm surely not depriving anyone of anything more tangible than "an opportunity to sell to my friend", which is an abstract concept indeed. If I feed my friend lunch, do I not equally deprive someone of this opportunity?
I thought of a few more possible justifications, but at the end of the day I'm afraid I cannot see the moral imperative. As far as I can tell, there is no basis for a moral obligation to use artists' works in the way they direct. I will continue to use them as I like, as folks have done for as long as there has been art.
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:2, Interesting)
That, I think, is the problem. I would like to know who is downloading potential evidence from me (although I can say I only share my creations and gutenburged texts). Perhaps if either party had complete anonimity it'd feel safer.
I've heard some IRCops have been trolling recently and even that one of the servers kick-banned everyone to save it's users.
Re:Anecdotal Evidence - not so good (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just nonesense... The RIAA has monoplistic type control over pricing (although technically I think they would be classified as a cartel and not a monopoly...) so the price of CD's rising or falling is a direct consequence of the RIAA's decisions.
However... As for the real "value" of music... IMHO the value of music (i.e. how much you would be willing to pay for the crap) is dropping substantially and we are working our way to a new business model for the music industry where acquiring music is free/near free and the money is made through other things (concerts, merchandice, etc.) and having a piece of crap song that goes top 10 won't cause a band to become instantly rich.