P2P Bits 300
yohaas writes "Two Op-Ed stories today in the NY Times address music sharing. In one Kembrew McLeod says that the lawsuits aren't working and gives some alternate suggestions. In the other Harvard Law professor William Fisher says that the industry is going about the situation in the wrong way, concluding that 'the record industry's response to file sharing--trying to block the technology altogether--would generate the worst of all possible results'. Neither article is comprehensive, but they are good read nonetheless." Reader Brill Pappin points out that Canadians aren't afraid of the music industry. And reader The Importance of Being Earnest writes "The INDUCE Act, which would make it a crime to 'induce' copyright infringement, such as by inventing things like the Betamax, has finally been officially introduced. The bill has been renamed the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act [PDF]. In addition to the name change, there has been another slight modication: 'counsel' is no longer part of the proposed statute. Here is a line-by-line refutation of Hatch's introduction [PDF] to the Act. EFF has shown how broad the Act is by writing a mock lawsuit [PDF] suing Apple (for making the iPod), C|Net (for reviewing the iPod), and Toshiba (for supplying hard drives for iPods). Previous Slashdot coverage here."
Not my area of expertise (legal or IP) (Score:3, Interesting)
Other perspectives (Score:5, Interesting)
sPh
Re:yay for legalized bribery! (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither of the NYT articles get it.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, that's foolish.
The RIAA has absolutly nothing to gain by releasing the promotional controls they have over the industry. Why? Because it completly removes all their power. P2P/Webcasting make the threat of the next big thing coming up outside their reach very possible...and possibly very likly.
The fight over P2P and webcasting is not intended to raise money in the short term, it's intended to monopolize the promotional channels to ensure their long-term relevence.
The silver lining in the falling sky... (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple fact of the matter is that the existance of the Internet has made unlimited digital sharing a reality. The genie's out, people love getting free stuff, and nothing short of a police state is going to stop it. The content providers are either going to have to find a business model to take advantage of this, or learn to live with it. It's that simple.
RIAA Members would be first victims of this law! (Score:2, Interesting)
0.001% (Score:3, Interesting)
What I don't understand is that I can have an archive of music on a network and someone can "break in" and steal that music from me and then I can get sued by the RIAA. Where is the logic in that!
Aj
GroupShares Inc. [groupshares.com] - A Free and Interactive Stock Market Community
Re:Canada not afraid (Score:5, Interesting)
The Vic newspaper said she was using Kazaa, which doesn't make much sense as we have our own UToronto-wide file-sharing network using DC++ that goes at like 7mpbs and has a huge selection...
The article you cite is dated March 31, so maybe the instance I'm referencing took place prior to that date.
Re:Problem with Paying a Monthly Fee for file-shar (Score:3, Interesting)
Expand the issue to not being merely file sharing (which is an issue of reproduction and distribution) but expand it to the entire scope of copyright (so that this scheme would also apply to creating derivatives, and some public distributions and performances and such), and then instead of paying a monthly fee, don't pay at all. But rather than make this available altogether, which would merely be the abolishment of copyright, instead only permit natural persons to be shielded by this, provided they are acting noncommercially.
Then things become pretty simple: ordinary people don't pay artists at all, unless either a) they want to (because they feel charitable, or can't find an alternative source for the works) or b) they're using it commercially. Businesses would of course have to pay regardless of whether or not they're using the work commercially.
How that money is allocated would be just as it is now: up to the various parties involved to hash out.
Funny timing (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA is just another group funded by large corporations to pursue their interests, rather than the interests of individuals, and I could care less if they disappeared tomorrow. I know this, though: Sharing songs with no revenue going to the people that created them is financially harmful to the songwriters. Music isn't something that a person can't live without, and listening to radio is free.
Here's something else I know. If labels like RCA didn't spend $250,000 recording a CD (that could be done for easily 1/10 that cost) they'd have less to cry about in the profit news.
Re:yay for legalized bribery! (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as the USA has a separation between church and state there needs to be a separation of industry and state.
back on topic: making it illegal to invent things is a very innovative way to stifle innovation.
Re:I may screw this up... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if the MPAA campaign is appealing to the public any better?
Re:I may screw this up... (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA bashing will get you your +5, despite being factually inaccurate.
I like bashing RIAA as much as the next /.er, and working at a p2p company, I have good reason.
However, the truth of the situation is that despite having reservations over being told what to do, most people merely accept instructions from authority [google.com] without questioning them.
I would say that desipte RIAA attmpeting to shut down my business, that they are, in fact, going about the situation in "the right way(tm)", where "right" in this context means "likely to achieve the majority of self interest goals", if for no other reason than because most people don't question "authoritative answers" to issues they encounter.
I fairly recently had a discussion with a friend of mine, who fairly clearly demonstrated this principle. She had heard on the "FOX news" that downloading mp3s would cause you to go to jail. When I asked about this, seeking more details from her (remember, I make p2p software, so am interested in average people's thoughts on the subject) she actively avoided putting any thought into the subject, and instead rapidly retreated to the comfort of TV-delivered answers, as stated in passing moments across the "news" about it being illegal or being responsible for "starving artists" or "child porn".
To me, it just reinforced my oppinion that the average person (and this friend is truly an average American) would rather just accept the "Authoritative answer from TV" to nearly any problem or situation encountered.
What a long post to disagree with your off-the-cuff statement, eh?
-dave-
Re:Canada not afraid (Score:4, Interesting)
We're in the midst of federal elections here. Unfortunately its the standard issue of compromised choices. I can vote for the Conservatives, who although state they are hands-off for business subsidies and want to eliminate CANCON, they also would override the canadian consititution in issues of gay rights, want to privatise healthcare, and have heavy backing by funadmentalist christian groups from the rural western provinces.
Alternatively, I can vote for the Liberals who have been plagued with spending scandals, are firm supporters of CANCON, and wish to strengthen copyrights rules. Unfortunately they're the more progressive party in terms of personal rights and freedoms and have a less aggressive tax-cut strategy.
The New Democratic Party would raise taxes both on the recording industry and on the CDs... no one would buy them anymore, and the recording companies would go bankrupt.
Re:Fingers crossed.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it - if they outlaw a certain piece of technology solely because it could be used to circumvent copyright (the iPod is a good example), then how long will it be before some capitol hill schmuck decides to author a law making other devices illegal? After all, a rifle could be used to shoot someone, a car could be used to race illegally, and a toaster could be used to electrocute someone in the bathtub.
I'm not necessarily saying that this would certainly happen; only that a bill like this would open the door for it. You just watch.
Re:Ironic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice, also, that they're a
A concerned Internet User (Score:2, Interesting)
Man, i love those 'Concerened X's of Y.' Who are these people. Are they a a group of house wives (or husbands) who get together and say 'our society is falling to pieces, we must raise money to publish adds that will make satelite-single-stealers/internet-pirates/movie-b
At the end of teh day, I'm goign to give up UT because 'killing people online is still killing.'
And remember children: 'When you download MP3s, you Download Communism!!!'
Sure, blame Canada Again.... (Score:4, Interesting)
We are all presumed guilty anyway, as we are charged a tax on blank CD's for money to go to the "poor starving" artists. SOCAN has collected the money, but last I had heard none (or very little) had ever made it to the artists as it was mainly used to pay for the administration of collecting the fee.
Re:Warning - (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fingers crossed.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I may screw this up... (Score:3, Interesting)
See, I don't have a television. The only place I have seen one of these ads was in a cinema.
The result of me having to listen to propaganda like that without the benefit of "mute" or "fast forward" buttons, while trying to "do the right thing" and actually *spending* $20 or so on admission to a movie on a non-discounted night, left a distinctly unpleasant taste in my mouth.
If it weren't such a cool movie (LoTR 3), I would have been decidedly dempted to leave, get my money back, and hit bittorrent.
The MPAA, though, is in very little danger from downloads. It will take a bite out of DVD sales, but the box office can never be replaced. I don't know many people with 8-point surround sound and 15-foot high screens, and those few who do aren't usually worried about the cost of a DVD.
Re:yay for legalized bribery! (Score:3, Interesting)
If bribery is found to have occured, then federal prison sentences should be imposed on both the elected official and the Company's officers.
Re:Warning - (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, sue them for contributory negligence by supplying the music in the first place.
Re:yay for legalized bribery! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a law yet, just a bill. And given Sen. Hatch's track record, I wouldn't worry too much about it becoming law.
Still, given the number of people in Utah who own iPods and CD burners, it makes one wonder why they keep re-electing that clown. Apparently they haven't connected the dots between their diminishing rights and their senator...
Re:Funny timing (Score:3, Interesting)
Ultimately, as long as the perks keep flowing (and yes the band pays, but usually doesn't notice), the band will produce good work, not question the deal as time goes by because they're living the high life, and they keep the carefree/rebel image that is demanded by popular music.
Once the sales have stopped (and the royalties), so do the advances and everything else. But until they decide not to release or the sales stop, they want to foster the rockstar lifestyle in their acts: it's in the label's benefit.
Even large once established acts are like this. I know a guy that was a guitarist for a big name, 80s band (one album went platinum more than several times over). After a time in the spotlight and enjoying the rock'n'roll way, let's just say I've got a nicely surfaced kitchen table right now because the guy's got to make a living one way or another. The royalties? Mechanical Syncronization rights and publishing? HA! That's all for the label.
This is why I got out of music as a profession. There were better ways to make money and I can write the music I want and not be beholden to anyone.
Cheers!
SCB