RIAA Sues Nearly 500 New Swappers 637
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the story. " U.S. music industry group says it has sued 493 more people for copyright infringement as part of its campaign to stop consumers from copying music over the Internet.
The Recording Industry Association of America has now sued nearly 3,000 individuals since last September in an attempt to discourage people from copying songs through peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa and LimeWire." "
I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that file sharing of unlicensed copyrighted works is illegal, but the practice of threatening lawsuits left and right still bothers me. As many of you are aware, a number of the people already sued did not have the financial ability to fund a lawyer even if they wanted to. The question is, what happens if a company (like DirecTV mentioned here [slashdot.org]) starts blanket suing for something that is not necessarily illegal? These corporations have deep pockets, and they could threaten to sue the crap out of you for looking at them cock-eyed, to which many people would have to settle out of court (I'm not being literal). If you can't afford a lawyer then what do you do? 'Admit' to wrong-doing you didn't committ? Again, I realize that a lot of file sharing IS illegal, but the whole blanket lawsuit thing does raise some interesting (or scary?) questions.
losing the music-war (Score:5, Insightful)
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare.
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
Yet more lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
The days of them being able to sell people 9 tracks of crap because they're bundled up with the 2 good tracks on the album are coming to an end. A different economic model is taking shapem and the pigopolists are just trying to skim as much money off the current system as they can.
It's not about performer's rights to be fairly paid for their work - it's about producer's rights to snort finest peruvian coaine off the breasts of supermodels.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you really call these "blanket lawsuits", given that the RIAA has sued only 3,000 out of millions who are illegally downloading music?
And yes, I think the tactic has been more successful at embittering thir customers than at preventing illegal distribution of their product, and that generally these lawsuits are a Bad Thing (tm) but let's not make this something it isn't.
Re:What about CD owners? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you had purchased the CD/record that would be illegal.
This is cheap (Score:2, Insightful)
I cannot imagine that the cost to figure out your name, hire a lawyer to write you a letter and serve you with papers then settle the case is less than $3000. Seems to me that the RIAA is letting people off for the cost of being told they did something wrong. I can't really see a problem with this.
Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, the intent is to minimize new bees joining the hive, while at the same time through intimidation reduce the members of the hive contributing productively.
In the end they hope the hive will starve off from lack of contributors (sharers).
I Pre-Apologize for the extended use of a bad analogy, but I just couldn't resist :-p
Publicity of RIAA Court Cases (Score:3, Insightful)
So who's right and who's wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now before the hate replies come in, I should mention that I'm all for file-sharing. I think RIAA are a bunch of corrupt bastages who overcharge for their products and services, and underpay the real talent--the entertainers.
I think game design companies charge way too much for a product, which is not neccesarily a corruption, but a misunderstanding of market forces. They feel they have to correct for piracy by charging $50/game, when in fact, there would be a lot more copies sold if they offered the same product for half. But then, that's been said for years.
I think the movie industry...is still quite fair. They churn out movies, $5-8 is a reasonable price to pay for a couple of hours of entertainment. If one does not like what they watch, then at most, an hour's minimum wage is lost. If it happens repeatedly, then they should take advantage of the local library.
Does this mean I'm anti-piracy? No. If you got something for free, and you enjoyed it, then you should then pay for it. Because in America, votes are determined by dollars, not by voices. If you vote (aka "buy") a legit copy of that game/CD/movie that you loved, then you have just voted for more of the same genre/artist/director to be produced. Same goes for everything. Feel free to sample, if you feel you need to. But if you like it, and continue to use it, you have an ethical obligation to buy.
That said, free sampling aside, piracy and distribution of copywrited material is still illegal, and those who participate in it take that risk willingly. The piper may be a total arsehead (read: RIAA), but that doesn't mean they don't have legal right in this matter.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old. [everything2.com]
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
The artists are merely pawns (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me, the biggest pirates are the executives. Litigating consumers is just a way of deflecting attention from the fact that consumers are tired of getting ripped off for buying $20 CDs worth only $2 and that the studio executives are worried about losing their profits. The real victims in the litigation are the artists.
Re:bring it on (Score:1, Insightful)
In this case, I'd say greed, lack of morals, and poor character are the mother of invention. Does your mother know she raised a thief?
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't hum that tune in public! (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law is completely out of touch with physical reality, technology, and our culture (and indeed it actively stifles the latter two).
An example of how rediculous copyright law is, and how artists as well as the industry have grown used to double dipping. It isn't enough to cell the CD, they want to get paid every time it is played in a restaraunt or bar. It is even illegal to play the radio in a restaurant or bar
But, what is often unremarked about these absurd laws, is that a person humming a copyrighted tune as they walk down the street is technically breaking the same law, giving a "public performance" without a license. As is the busker on the corner, the teenage garage band when they perform at their local high school, etc.
It really is past the time when we as a society should have repudiated the very notion that one can "own" ideas (patents) or their expressions (copyright). A far less draconian mechanism for reimbursing artists for their work needs to be devised, something that insures them a portion of the profits made without imposing restrictions on how the work may be incorporated into other aspects of our culture, but most of all, unlike copyright a mechanism that favors artists and culture rather than publishers and middlemen.
A quick example of one of the many such alternatives that have been proposed: a tax on works sold, with a set percentage (say 50%) going directly to the original artist. Anyone can publish your book (and you can't stop them) but you get half the proceeds. As an artist or author you have no control, but you are generously compensated financially.
It really is time we as a society started thinking outside the box on this issue, if we wish to have any kind of viable, free society left in the information age, and wish to do so in a manner that benefits artists and fans, rather than consortia of parasitical middlemen such as the RIAA (and more to the point, their attorneys).
In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you *ever* *consider* buying another Britney Spears (RIAA-represented) cd if a member of your family, a friend, or a neighbour was sued?
I for one welcome our new free music overlords and only listen to alternative music: trance, rock, whatever. It's there, just as good (even better!) and ready to be explored. I have over 30 GB (!) of mp3's in my shared folder, and run 30+ radio webcast stations, with solely music not represented by the RIAA. I'm still waiting for the subpoena so I can countersue for battery or slander!
Re:DC++ (Score:2, Insightful)
LimeWire has always been a supporter of an open protocol and open source (limewire.org). Bad Kazaa. Good LimeWire.
Re:Whew! Still safe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a system is entrenched (like RIAA in the copyright system) it is basically impossible to reform it from within. You have to leverage to reform the system because the people in power built it with their own interested in mind and have no incentive to consider other possibilities. The only hope the average man has is to eventually cause enough ruckus to bring the problem to a head and force the change. That is what is happening now with file swapping, but I fear there will be a lot of dead bodies littering the field (metaphorically speaking I hope) before this battle is over.
Re:What about CD owners? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
So... if somebody keeps calling your house from 555-1212 and breathing heavily at your daughter, then is it also *your* responsibility to track that person down before you do something about it? Seems like a double standard.
And how about this for an idea:
- Don't break the law.
- ???
- Don't get in trouble.
I have no love for the RIAA or the MPAA, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what's so difficult about just following the rules.Whats up with this? (Score:2, Insightful)
I just want an answer to that. With the state of todays copyright, why are libraries still legal?
Last time I went the local library had a movie selection rivaling Blockbuster and an audio section larger than Tower records.
Will video games, or other pieces of software ever be legal to borrow from the local library?
What gives? Are libaries legal only if run by the government? Are only non-profit libraries legal? Could I open my OWN library and let people borrow my CDs and books?
Please no IANAL responses, I want to know the distinction.
Really Vague (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about CD owners? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I didn't proofread my own comment. (Score:2, Insightful)
It should have read "However, they wouldn't be sued if there wasn't an IP address performing illegal file sharing linked to them."
My apologies for the mistake.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old. [everything2.com]
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
That would create a legal loophole big enough to drive even SCO through it. Or perhaps, we already suffer from such a loophole. When my computer is attacked by an appearant intruder at 66.35.250.150 (using the IP from your example; I don't recall seeing it before), I conclude that someone is responsible for the intrusion. I contact the ISP to find out who, but they won't tell without a court order. Going through the paperwork to obtain a court order, especially across national borders, is something I'd like to avoid, so I'd rather sue the ISP for their involvement and let them sort it out with their customer if they want.
By requiring me to know the name and residential address of the real perpetrator before I can take any kind of legal action against them, I'm effectively prohibited from taking action against either the perpetrator (because he is anonymous) or the ISP acting as his front (because they can correctly claim that they acted on behalf of their customer only and uphold his anonymity).
I don't like being on the same side as the RIAA, and I feel their lawsuit campaign does infringe on the rights and freedoms of individuals, but it's not because those are "John Doe" lawsuits. The combined claims of "I did nothing wrong" and "I have the right to be anonymous and immune against legal action even in case of suspected wrongdoing" sound a bit hypocritical to me. I'd rather request to defend my actions in court, if I had the opportunity. If you don't trust your legal system to be fair to you, don't ask that same legal system for protection against said infairness, but ask someone else.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Large corporations have plenty of blood, sweat and tears on "their hands". My god, ever been to a sweatshop in China, Taiwan? I've actually seen the pee buckets near their seats. This was a shop making clothes for the Gap.
Don't want blood on their hands. Pffft. If they can do it, they will. Remember that.
Where is the line drawn? (Score:3, Insightful)
If i take a song, represent it in binary (create a file out of it), and then just call it a number, can't i tell the court that all i was doing was sending a number to my friend? It's not my fault if the number can be decoded into sound. An artist can't possibly own all the numbers his song could be digitized into!
I can't seems to figure out what is considered an artist's property and what is not. If i walk down the street and sing a tune to myself, can i be sued? Is it different if someone else hears me sing the tune, and then starts singing it themselves?
If i get a song stuck in my head can they do a brain scan and sue me over and over again?
All along the watchtower contains the chord progression Am, G, F, G, Am, and so does Stairway to Heaven (and many other tunes), so what's the deal with this?
I call bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the justification attempts for copyright infringement, this one grates on me the worst.
If you want to listen to a certain song, you currently have several LEGAL options:
A. Buy the album (or single if available) on CD.
B. Purchase the song from an online distributor like iTunes.
C. Listen to it on the radio.
Having no intention to buy the music is NOT a valid defense for copyright infringement. There are lots of people who ARE willing to pay for it, and do so. What makes you so fucking special that you shouldn't have to?
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
One helpful social change would be to *stop cheering the thieves on*. If you dislike the big labels, fine, but don't lionize criminal behavior just because it hurts someone you dislike. History seems to show that "the enemy of my enemy will probably turn and attack me next." I don't want to hang around with dishonest people; I get a crick in my neck from watching my back all the time.
If you want to oppose incorrect behavior, the most productive way in the long run is to oppose it with correct behavior, not more incorrect behavior. Reward good behavior by doing business with good people. Refuse to reward bad behavior -- *anyone's* bad behavior -- and find ways to punish it *properly*.
Re:"John Doe" lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing really...
...except for the fact that those companies still charge upwards of $17 for a CD that is worth $5 at most, and keep most of that $17 for themselves
...except for the fact that those companies are approaching online music sellers like iTunes and asking them to increase the price of tracks to over $2
...except for the fact that those companies are greedy capitalist pigs that found a scapegoat in their customers and don't know when to stop.
Whoa there cowboy (Score:3, Insightful)
The companies are probably not going after Joe User who downloads a couple of tracks to see if he likes the music on an album before buying it.
You are assuming too much here
Perhaps you are right, and they are only suing people that are doing something illegal. I'm not trying to bash you here, or discount what you are saying, but I have not seen any of the evidence in any of these cases (and I'm not talking about the press info, I'm talking about evidence admissable in court)
Cases are brought, and settled everyday because one party or the other feels it would cost less to settle than to pay legal fees. It may very well be that all of these people are doing something illegal & probably most are, but what about the couple that might not be. Only a court can determine legality, and if someone settles solely due to their financial situation, there is no way to know.
In Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
I was always under the impression that if you do something in numbers, that was the safety mechanism. This is a huge concept in nature for survival. 3000 out of millions! My chances of winning the lottery are only slightly worse than my chances of getting sued by the RIAA!
How can the RIAA expect to thwart something that is so widely accepted, and internationally practiced? This is the equivalent of a strike or a boycott. Obviously these lawsuits aren't working very well, and even so, the sharing networks will just end up switching to a closed system like Friendster where 'known parties' will use strong encryption to transmit data.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
This excuse keeps coming up, and it's starting to get on my nerves. Just because the record company who's stuff you're copying isn't part of the RIAA, it doesn't make it legal for you to distribute their material. Sure, they might not be sending rabid lawyers after you, but most record companies (even non-RIAA ones) don't take too kindly to you freely giving out the material they sell.
*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is everyone getting this wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, but for the wrong reasons.
They're publicizing that they're suing downloaders to scare people - 'cause most people don't say "I'm gonna go upload some music", they say "I'm gonna go download some music". Those are the people they're trying to scare.
Anyways, as for downloading not being illegal, yes and no. If you own the physical CD, it is legal to format shift it onto your computer... Whether that means you stick the CD in your drive and rip it, or download the tracks from Kazaa, both are legal methods of format shifting. However, if you do not own the CD, then you are not authorized to format shift if you don't own the source material. It ends up being legally equivalent to 'buying stolen goods' - you bought the goods and paid money for them, but if you knew they were stolen originally (or could strongly suspect), then you are guilty too.
Since the only people with rights to upload the tracks legally are the artists (sometimes) and the distribution houses, and almost no artists do so and no distribution houses do, it's highly likely that your source is uploading it illegally. Knowing that, your downloading is not legal...
Unless, as said before, you have the physical CD. Then it's legal, 'cause it doesn't matter where you get the format-shifted version.
So, the moral of the story is... go buy all of your downloaded music on CD in cash the moment you receive a subpoena. Since the only way they can catch you is if you're also uploading, use the virus defense to say that you never clicked a "upload my music" button and it must be a virus. And here's the CDs to prove that you own the music.
200 CDs costs a lot less than a lawyer or a $5k settlement. Buy 'em used, too!
(Not that I condone any of this, of course) ;)
-T
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
And lo, the great moguls and lawyers and gods of the RIAA heard your cry, and stopped suing the networks, instead chosing to find people who were distributing, without permission, content whose copyright belonged to their members.
Now you're asking them to stop using civil suits, and start criminal prosecutions. Do you really want to them to hear you? Do you want these 500 swappers facing bankrupting fines and (admittedly short) periods of imprisonment? Do you really want future swappers - regardless of whether they're imprisoned or not - to be prevented from voting in most juristictions, to have problems with credit and employment?
No? Well shut the fuck up then, moron.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to go about trying to legitamize the booger-flinging little brats that run around ripping off songs on p2p and ruining a good thing for everyone else, but how, exactly, do you propose that we reward good behavior when there isn't any around? The problem here is that there are so many ridiculously deep levels of the RIAA that, even with ongoing lists of tainted labels, it's almost impossible to keep up with what is and what isn't poisoned by the RIAA's presence. Even individual bands flipping between labels can confuse matters. My KMFDM collection is clean so far, but I won't finish up the rest of it because some of the later albums aren't. What now?
This problem extends beyond the RIAA too. Where do I go for high speed internet? I can get *DSL from Verizon, but they're pure evil, and I can get cable from Adelphia, but they're staffed entirely by morons and escapees from a Down's Syndrome group home.
With the conglomerates and monopolies overrunning government policy makers and quietly spreading their tendrils through previously independant operations, it's almost impossible to find any "good behavior" in a company in this country anymore, and I can't afford the higher prices of little local mom and pops (beause, despite what many, many very stupid people say, the economy is still a shithole).
It's hard to reward good behavior when there isn't any....
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
The game is rigged so that the more you fight the more you lose.
$5/month to a legal settletlement fund (Score:2, Insightful)
How many people are using these networks?
493 people X $3,000 = $1,479,000
$1,479,000 = $5 X 295,800
My guess is that 295,800 is but a tiny fraction of the number of sharers who would be willing to pay $5 per month.
Any extra proceeds raised by the fund could be used to purchase better search/index nodes.
Re:Download does not equal lost sale (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a difference between the store giving away the sample willingly and the customer just handing out samples because they want to.
If the store doesn't want to give away free samples they don't have to allow it. So why do we expect anyone else to be forced to give them away?
Re:Where is the line drawn? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not about fooling anyone. It is the exact opposite in fact. It is a matter of the intrinsic freedom of trading numbers. You cannot claim a number as property becuase it could possibly happen to represent a song in some digital format.
If I were to pull the first 4 bytes from each mp3 frame, then the file could no longer be considered an mp3 or audio file for that matter.
Or furthermore, i could take ANY long string of 1's and 0s and create a player (decoder) that would decode that particular string of numbers into some copywritten work (or something that sounds similar). There is too much gray area.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, its not UNETHICAL.
There is a big difference. Ethical actions can be illegal, and Unethical actions can be legal.
LEgality has nothing to do whether an action is right or wrong.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:3, Insightful)
Its all about evolution... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Instead of discouraging me from sharing my music, why don't they encourage me to buy. It comes down to the same end result and this way, I don't feel attacked.
2. Its all about evolution.
History is a good teacher to prove us that if a company does not evolve, it will die. if you cannot understand / satisfy your clients, you will perish or be bought.
RIAA's model hasn't evolved from when RIAA was created at all. Back then, there was no internet, thus, the market was different.
Today, RIAA hasn't evolved one bit, they're still acting as though there was no internet, as though they had no opponent.
But they do have one opponent : Evolution. They need to update their business model so that they stop losing money when we share music.
As sad as it is for them, today, I can find most of the music I want on the internet, so why would I buy a CD ?
for two reasons
1. I really like the band and I think they deserve some money
2. The CD offers me something I cannot get on the internet.
For instance, a local artist (Francois Pérusse - http://www.zeromusic.com/perusse/) includes a small membership card with every CD, that membership gives access to a protected section where you can listen to stuff not available on the market such as unreleased material
That's one reason why I would buy his CD..and I do.
Sadly, many companies today refuse to evolve, they refuse because it'll cost them money, they'll need to change.
What they do not seem to realize is that everyday they remain as they are is another day where they lose even more money trying to stop us...and in the end, they never do.
Just my 2c.
Moral relativity is bunk. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It may be wrong of me to sodomize these prisoners with a glow stick, but IMHO what they did to us on 9/11 is more wrong than what I'm doing."
I admit, my analogy isn't perfect -- for one thing, in my version both acts are illegal, whereas you're undertaking an illegal act to respond to something that's entirely legal.
If you don't want to give your money to RIAA-member companies anymore, don't consume their product anymore! Stop being a jackass.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
sounds stupid doesn't it. Just because you don't agree with a law, or the people backing it doesn't make it any more invalid. If you choose to violate it then you are violating the law, plane and simple.
I'm not in any way comparing murder to filesharing but it is one extream to the argument the parent presented. Saying thier not thieves is the same as saying they didn't violate a law and the argument falls short realquick. If there is a problem with the law, or who inspired the laws, then by all means take action and try to get it replaced with a more apropriate law.
By the way, to this day i havn't been able to find the law that says downloading is ilegal. All I can find is were sharing it is. I have asked several times for someone to show a law stating that it is not legal but all I get is hypotheticals that don't hold water. Maybe it is important to seperate the sharers from the downloaders when having conversations about this. I would hate to be called a thief because I bought somethign from a store that was selling stollen goods. Or even cloaser might be getting busted for exposing yourself in public when all you did was use the urinal in the public restroom at the court house.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: Unless the songs being shared were not available on any of the available download stores, these people are deserving of what they have received (if the idiots at the RIAA have done their research). But going after stupid kids is kinda cheep, i must say.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:2, Insightful)
Exchanging information non-commercially is not *in itself* thieving. Exchanging information you have not got the legal right to exchange is, whether you do it for money or love or to stick it to the greedheads. The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
a perhaps more accurate car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I think it needs some reworking to more accurately reflect the role that the RIAA is playing now-a-days...
Let's say that the car companies got together to form the APIA (Auto Producers Industry Association) and used their considerable lobbying clout to influence Congress to pass new legislation that outlaws the selling of or owning of used cars.
Say then that the automakers decide to not sell cars in the tradional way anymore, but only lease them with extensive "appropriate-use" regulations attached and extensive monitoring equipment to ensure that you comply.
Additionally, after a couple of years when the car makers release a new model they refuse to offer any of the older models for lease and instead recall them and refuse to make these models available for any purpose.
That is closer to the situation that the RIAA is trying to bring into existence.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:2, Insightful)
Taking something requires the original "something" be missing afterwards: and this is the point. See past the greed and sheer self preservation that has fueled some musicians to take up their art. There exists people who want to make the world a better place by freely(as in beer) increasing the amount of a valuable, why try to stop them?
No one loses money to filesharing, just as the people who put statues up at delphi didn't lose money either, their work was what made them virtuous people. Be virtuous.
There are a FINITE amount of cars in the world, and not everyone can have one. That's partially why they cost so much. This is not the case with mp3s. This is why you shouldn't steal cars: because after you do, some other poor bastard is without a car afterwards. Not because it's illegal. Not because you can't afford to get one.
Re:Don't hum that tune in public! (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I don't think that is how music copyrights work. While it may SEEM that way considering how most "musicians" can't read musical notation, instead they use those guitar chord notations, TIME is an essential part of music.
Every possible combination of actual notes is only a small part of music. You have the time measurement for each note (1/8th note, 1/4 note), you have the dynamic range(forte, piano), you have the style of the note(muted, tremolo, vibrato, staccato), all in addition to a wide range of octaves (10 on a piano for instance), and the use of chords.
When you consider all of these factors, you realize there is a near infinite number of different combinations of music out there. Maybe this is why people still dig it.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a great page on musical terminology.
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Civil courts reeeeealy need to think about changing the level of proof from 'balance of probabilities' to 'beyond reasonable doubt' like the criminal courts *supposedly* use, and making being unable to afford to defend oneself a miscarige of justice (not sure if justice is right word for civil cases)
Re:So who's right and who's wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the old Supply vs. Demand cross is often used as the determining factor in establishing price, but is unfortunately already debunked, along with many of Keynes other ideas. The Keynesian economic philosophy is still heavily used, but the fact is it just does not apply to the real world.
Bear the following in mind:
- Not everyone has internet access, thus, not everyone has access to file-sharing.
- This market is also divided into those who have access to those who have access to friends who can obtain and burn them a copy of the software, and those who do not.
- The remaining users are basically forced to obtain their software from a store. They can either wait for it to hit a major discount (such as Half Price Books) or buy it at the premium.
- Of those that have access to pirated software, some will not opt to use it, because of either ethical reasons, or fear of being caught. Then you have the people like me who might try the software for free, and then delete it if I'm not then willing to go buy a legit copy.
So there you are. An entire market of people who are willing to buy software, if the price is right.Now add to that Games are a luxury. Unlike Office-type products, where a business needs them to survive, a game is simply a form of risky entertainment. Risky, because the game might not work, or it may just not be fun.
So what does one pay for the average luxury? Just about everyone has $10 to spare. They will blow that much to watch a movie, eat a meal at a restaurant, go bowling, play a few rounds of pool, grab a beer after work, or any number of relatively cheap activities. They are affordable luxuries and provide the buyer a reliably good time for their money.
However, $50(the average price for a new computer game) is a lot more daunting. Most people are going to see the price tag, and then evaluate whether or not it's worth shelling out that much for what might very well be a bad entertainment investment. If you knew that you could have a great time doing something else with $50, vs. staring at a box and dubious screenshots, with nothing but the description of the product on the back to guide you, most people will choose the former. Even if they'd rather choose the latter, plunking down $50 just might not be possible.
$10, on the other hand, amounts to very little loss if the game is not worth it, and almost everyone has $10 available within a pay period. For every one person that is willing to shell out $50 for a game that they've heard was pretty good, there are ten who would have paid $10 with little or no prompting. That's $100 vs. $50.
Now the reason the "market research" leaves the price at $50 is that they assume, wrongly IMHO, that their audience is relatively small, and the work will be pirated out enough to reduce profits. After all, dropping the price to $40 appeared to gain them little attention. $30 probably a tiny bit more, but still not enough to make a difference. But drop the price of a game to a very reasonable $10, and they may very well see the number of games sold skyrocket.
Now, I could be wrong. I very well could be, but as far as I've observed, they are using a Keynesian model for their pricing, and are basing their buying demographic off of a significantly smaller base than they could attain with a lower price.
-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old. [everything2.com]
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I also understand the consequences of my actions. I understand that by not abiding by the laws of the land I must pay the penalties when I am caught doing so, and I will stand by that.
-Al
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it sometime. Where does the government derive it's power to issue commands?
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
File sharing is definately ILLEGAL!
Filesharing is most definitely NOT illegal. What is illegal is the redistribution of copyrighted materials, which unfortunately is what people think of when they hear "filesharing". But seriously, if you take out that aspect of filesharing, there is nothing illegal nor unethical about it.
Re:Why is everyone getting this wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Similarly, it should not be my responsibility if someone downloads a file from me that they are not entitled to.
That argument may work for non-copyrightable items, but this is like saying that just because you xeroxed a bestselling novel and put the copies on a table on Times Square, you shouldn't be responsible for people taking them. The important fact is that by providing the copy, you are facilitating the distribution of copyrighted works.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's travel back to say 1830...If I "stole" somebody's slave and set him free, am I really stealing? To the owner and possibly the gov't of the time, yes. However, I feel I have the "moral high ground"(favorite phrase of mine lately) in setting a person free that nobody has a right to own, even if society says otherwise. What's being done is merely against the law. It doesn't mean that it's wrong. Many times the law is wrong, and has to be made, by violations, to be unenforceable. The controlled substances act is a good example. Weed was made illegal, not for the benefit of society in general, but simply to round up and deport the Mexicans out of California during the depression. The law is wrong, but too many people believe the propaganda, and thus will be difficult to repeal. This is one reason democracy is called tyranny by the majority.
The selling of copies of information is no longer a viable business. And if you want to know who is really hurt by P2P, it's the pirates who SELL copies as a business. They are the first who will cease to exist due to P2P. And they are probably the ones "complaining" to the RIAA about all this file sharing on the net. They stand to lose the most. The pirates who sell unauthorized copies in Asia and other parts are the ones helping the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft acquire and maintain mind share in these markets. The net just made them obsolete. Society and its "criminals" maintain a bizarre(but apparently necessary) relationship.
History seems to show that "the enemy of my enemy will probably turn and attack me next." I don't want to hang around with dishonest people; I get a crick in my neck from watching my back all the time.
So very true. I don't believe that file sharers are dishonest. On the contrary, the RIAA has settled with the gov't on several ocassions to avoid being convicted of the wrongdoing they are so obviouly giulty of. They appear to be the dishonest ones. You will get no argument from me on your last paragraph. If we simply followed that, the whole world would definitely be a better place.
Thieves? Of what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You may see little difference, but a little difference is still a difference.
The publisher offers a certain deal on a recording, and if I take that deal and then try to behave as though it were a different deal, I'm going back on my word and that's wrong.
It may be wrong, but that doesn't make it stealing.
A performance is not property. It happens and then it's over. A recording of a performance can be copyrighted, but it's still not property. If I take your only copy (say, the only tape containing that performance), then I've stolen from you. But if I copy it, I haven't stolen anything.
Copying your recording may mean that you don't have the money I might have paid you for a copy had I been unable to copy it myself for free, but perhaps I wouldn't have paid you for it. In any case, that's still not theft. Perhaps "theft of opportunity"?
But you can't just say "there's little difference" and therefore behave as if there's no difference at all. That, too, is wrong. "Intellectual property" is a misnomer. It's the reason the idea of copyright exists in the first place.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:2, Insightful)
AAW
Re:a perhaps more accurate car analogy... (Score:2, Insightful)
The truth is stranger than fiction.
GM made an electric car called the EV-1. It was available for lease only. After 4 or 5 years, they refused to renew any of the leases and refused to sell any of the cars.
You had to return it to GM. If you didn't, it was theft. Even celebrities who owned them and made a big stink in public didn't get to keep their cars. All the outrage that chatrooms, chain letters and BBS could muster couldn't change GM's mind.
I hate the RIAA too.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, there lies the rub. To whom do we give legal authority? Who decides? You? Me? Bush?? Some people may believe otherwise, but I don't believe we are born under some EULA. This agreement doesn't have my signature on it. I feel no obligation to abide by it. Many laws are passed without the public's consent.(copyright extensions?) Their failure to repeal them does not automatically validate them. The law becomes subject to contempt when they can be bought and sold like company stocks.
Re:*stop cheering the thieves on* (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it does. And the RIAA (and their apologists) are using this fact to blur the line between actual, in-the-legal-sense "theft" and mere copyright violation. And having blurred this distinction, they want to apply theft penalties to a situation they were never intended for.
Sean