Iceland and USA Feel the Copyright Industry's Wrath 523
spellraiser writes "Iceland's Internet traffic saw a substantial decrease this week as police raided the homes of 12 individuals suspected of sharing massive amounts of copyrighted material over a private, local DC++ hub that was infiltrated by SMAIS, the Association of film right holders in Iceland. The people who were raided were questioned by the police, and had computer equipment confiscated. It is unclear at this point what their fate is, but there is a distinct possibility might face charges." And in the U.S., an anonymous reader writes "The Recording Industry Association of America strikes again with yet another round of lawsuits. Jon Newston over at P2Pnet.net doesn't hold back anything in his great commentary on it today. Best quote 'It's almost as if having lost its bitterly fought case against the p2p application owners and failed in its many obvious (and expensive) attempts to disrupt the p2p networks, the music industry is now determined to vent its wrath on helpless men, women and children who can't hope to stand up to it with its tremendous political and financial power.'"
Industry? (Score:3, Insightful)
you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
they're helpless to pay $8 to see a movie in the theater?
Article Title (Score:2, Insightful)
Does that mean the copyright industry is an enemy of the USA and Americans? Why else would it be waging wrath upon them?
'Best' Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
And people buying CD from artists under RIAA isn't either.
Poor kids (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe those poor helpless men, women and children should stop stealing then.
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Going in Circles (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, the market has already spoken and it has spoken loudly. An entirely new paradigm of music distribution has evolved and it isn't going to regress to the way it was in the previous generation. The RIAA had their chance to give people a product they want online and to use the new mechanism of distribution for profit. It failed to do so, thus other non-sanctioned methods entered the space to fill the void.
What will happen now is one of two things. Either the RIAA realizes that they can't have it their way and comes up with an acceptable online offer that will attract customers, or they will continue to spin their wheels in vain and alienate their customers who will in turn seek other outlets from which to obtain music.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they're doing just that - focusing on the people, not the technology. Their methods could be a lot better (they should focus on people who share a lot, not anyone with an MP3 with a suspicious name), but they *are* on the right track.
This is The Right Approach (Score:5, Insightful)
This is precisely the right thing for the labels to do. Go after the people who are breaking the law, not the people who make products that can be used to break the law. It is good because it is the way law should be (punishing the infringer, not the toolmaker), and it is good because it shows people how much the current copyright model sucks. Actions like this are exactly what we want, so that people will be motivated to move to new economic models of content distribution.
We need to find an economic model that both compensates the creator and moves the product into the public domain (or a similar Open license). Actions like this are exactly what will show the general public the value of the public domain.
Helpless men, women and children (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets call a troll a troll, here.
The RIAA suing copyright violators is *good* (Score:5, Insightful)
From a strategic point of view: The only alternative to punishing copyright violators, short of abandoning copyright altogether, is to make violation impossible through Orwellian DRM backed up by even more Orwellian legislation, or by hamstringing the Internet in some other way. I don't want to lose my freedom and my technology because some punks thought they should be allowed to download music without paying for it.
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like stepping on ants... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The German Army in fighting Russia is like an elephant attacking a host of ants. The elephant will kill thousands, perhaps even millions, of ants, but in the end their numbers will overcome him and he will be eaten to the bone."
So it is with the *AA. Eventually they will fail out of the sheer weight of numbers they are fighting.
Explain something to me (Score:5, Insightful)
It's articles like this that convince lawmakers, businessmen, and the Silent Majority that all this crowd is actually interested in is stealing movies. Right now I'd be hard pressed to argue with them.
Re:Like stepping on ants... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is finding enough ants willing to be killed. The Russians didn't have that problem because they had no choice in the matter. Personally, I'd rather not d/l music if it means being sued for thousands.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Industry? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is nowadays. The strengthening of copyright laws, and the defense of such laws against court cases designed to bring them back to rational levels, has become a major industry in itself.
The one and only defense? (Score:3, Insightful)
The one and only defense of P2P networks is that they are not "pirate to pirate" networks but rather a new tool for distributing independent, privately financed media and breaking the Hollywood deathgrip on media distribution.
The one and only defense?
I thought it was that we are free people who are innocent until proven guilty, and should be free to connect our computers together without having to prove that we have a "legitimate" reason first. But that's just me ...
Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy, that Jaguar is overpriced: it's a few hundred dollars of steel, glass and leather. Therefore, I can steal it.
Don't give me that "copyright-infringement-is-not-stealing-because-I- don't-deprive-you-from-using-it." Do you scream when companies use GPL code without releasing the source? How is this different?
Let's make a deal: Microsoft can close the Linux source and you can copy all the music you want.
Any takers?
Re:Capturing Terrorists (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA doesn't usually go after movie swappers. RIAA=music, MPAA=movies.
I say someone frames Osama (IP/DNS spoof) and uses P2P to share a boatload of music and movies on a Linux server, so that the RIAA, MPAA, and SCO all go after him. He won't last 12 hours before getting royally pwned by 3 predatory legal teams!
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Name one uploader who was threatened with jail time. Copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a civil matter, hence uploaders being sued for *money* and not being thrown in jail.
And What Would Sales Be If...? (Score:5, Insightful)
One way to test a thesis is to view the result if it were true.
The record industry wishes us to believe that every download is a lost sale. If true, what would their sales be if all downloads had never happened? Does this figure sound reasonable? Or does it exceed the total GNP of the G-7 nations, plus Nigeria?
I, for one, do not believe for a moment that Internet music sharing has kept the music industry from suddenly expanding several times in size. And since they can't tell the truth about this, I don't believe them about much else either. Do you?
Then again, I don't believe memos allegedly typed in 1971 clearly using Microsoft Word are authentic either. But if they are, then I'm using them as prior art to invalidate all patents relating to Microsoft Office!
Re:you mean... (Score:2, Insightful)
You *really* want to debate the difference between a "crime" and a "civil infraction"? Would the average layman really care?
I know I don't. They are breaking the law. Civil law. So what? IT'S ILLEGAL AND THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED!
Sigh. Too much coffee.
Who are "we all" and "everyone"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: "Why does the rest of Slashdot hold inconsistent opinions?"
A: "Because it has more than 2 users."
Better Idea.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, don't want to get sued then *change* the law. Let us make copyright 0 years. The people can make it any length they wish since copyright is an artifical creation of law.
I may settle for 14 years though, if they beg us enough
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't argue with that (apart from, as pointed out above, criminal vs civil charges).
But, I would argue with the scale of the fines imposed. Copyright infringement is simply not a very damaging thing to do. The amount the industry loses is guaranteed to be less than the cover price of the media, because a) it may not have been bought anyway, and b) they get free advertising.
2.5 TB (Score:1, Insightful)
That's all?
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it, while downloading copyrighted matierial is a civil crime, it's a crime the public doesn't believe in any longer. Over 6 billion people at any moment are practicing what would be considered civil disobedience in most other contexts. The RIAA and Congress can't seem to realize this. If Congress was really listening to the people it would be looking into ways to change the law to reflect what the public wants instead of what the RIAA wants. Frankly compulsary licensing is probably the only way everyone will end up happy, and it will make sure artists are paid. (If not the RIAA member companies, but the artists are the ones really get screwed now, by the RIAA member companies not piracy.)
Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA doesn't really need to do anything but file to have a lawsuit against you, they don't have to meet any real burden. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to have a minimum level of evidence, or the case will just be thrown out. Likewise the burden in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning they have to have pretty convincing proof you are guilty. In a civil trial it's a perponderance of the evidence, meaning they have to argue a little better than you.
Now all this was intentional. Criminal trials are intended to be for, well, crimes, things that society wants to punish you for. They also can carry very stiff penalities. Civil trials are for resolving financial disputes. If a tennant skips out without paying you, you take them to civil court to try and get your money.
The thing is, with copyright infringement, the amount they are allowed to ask for is so outrageous, it might as well eb jail time. They can sue for $150,000 PER INCIDENT which means for EACH file. Now you cannot honestly believe that someone having a signle MP3 on their harddrive costs the RIAA $150,000 (if you do then realise you are saying they should be worth several times the current gross world product). The fine is clearly excessive, which is prohibited by the constution.
So you get sued. Even if you are innocent, you basically have to settle. Hiring a defense isn't cheap (and you don't get one by default like in a criminal case). You also need a GOOD defense since they don't have to prove you shared the files beyond a reasonable doubt, just argue that you did a little better than you argue you didn't. Then, if you lose, well they basically own everythign you make for the rest of your life since we are talking of millions of dollars per CD.
THAT is the problem. If the RIAA was suing people for the price of the CDs they are sharing, I'd have no problem. I've got no problem with them saying "Oh you have 20 CDs worth of music you didn't purchase? Fine, we want $350." I wouldn't even have a problem if they sued for say, twice the amount. YOu are allowed to have some punitive damamges in there. However the statutory damages on the books are so excessive that it's literally a matter of your entire finincal future, just for a few songs. You are forced to settle, innocent or not.
What's more, UNC did a study, the link I'll post from home later if you like that showed that filesharing has a stasticaly insignificant impact on music sales. So you are talking extreme punishments for something that appears to be of very little harm.
It's like speeding enforcement. It's a minor offence, so it's a minor punishment. A reasonable fine, and some points on your license. We could reduce speeding to almost nothing by giving police M2s and having them destory any vehicle and kill any driver going over the speed limit, but that seems rather excessive and unfair. The same is true of having a hundred thousand dollar fine on copying music when it seems to have no impact on sales anyhow.
RIAA marketing style (Score:2, Insightful)
Individuals swap these MP3 files - RIAA does not sue
Individuals buy 10 billion dollars of MP3 players to play the shared files - RIAA sues
RIAA allowed the infrastructure for the usage of Music files to grow to a usables size then converts it into a profit point without having to spend marketing dollars to convince user to switch to this new music format. RIAA did not lose money to files sharers- They gained millions of addicted customers.
I once read a book that another family member bought, am I a copyright infringer? I still have a local copy- I remember the story.
Re:Make up your damn minds.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the thing is, the RIAA is abusing the probably unconsutionaly high stautory damages allowd for copyright infringement. Here we again have something that causes little harm, a UNC study showed no stasticaly significant effect of file sharing on music sales, we should have a reasonable fine. I'm fine with 2x the price of a CD in fine. You have 50 CDs you didn't pay for, you get nailed to the tune of $700-$1,000. Seems fair and reasonable, and also a workable deterrant.
However because of the high statutury damages allowed (up to $150,000 per song) people are faced with getting sued for millions or even billions of dollars. This amount is totally unreasonable, and so scary that even if you are innocent, you are going to settle simply because you can't afford to loose (and civil trials aren't to beyond a reasonable doubt, just a perponderance of the evidence).
So look, if the RIAA starts suing people for a reasonable amount, I'll back off any objections. So long as they sue for multiple millions of dollars, I will maintain that they are abusing the legal system.
Better Deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called 'copyright infrindgement' and not theft for an important reason, they are different. Physical property is different than ideas and information. You do realize that you are not deprived of your ideas when someone else thinks them, right?
"Don't give me that "copyright-infringement-is-not-stealing-because-I
Do I scream? Who are you talking to, I think you'll find a wide audience here at Slashdot. As for companies bullying individuals, you'll find people fighting against them by what ever means at their disposal including flinging called copyright laws in their face.
"Let's make a deal: Microsoft can close the Linux source and you can copy all the music you want."
Lets make a better deal, abolish copyright and then the GPL and all other licenses won't be necessary. I like that better, lets go for it all it takes is a simple majority vote to repeal the copyright bill and we are there.
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright infrigement is a crime. (Score:4, Insightful)
The tragedy of this is not only that these penalties are overly harsh, not commensurate with the crime, and burden millions of users for the benefit of a relatively small industry.
The tragedy is that it is a grotesque distortion of the once highly limited copyright law, a law that was only meant to regulate publishers. The incessant lobbying of spineless representatives has caused the scope and penalties of 'infringement' to balloon, without deliberation and without consulting the public.
Just as importantly, it is the industry's public relation's 'propaganda' (as Chomsky would call it) that has effectively morphed public opinion about what copyright was, what it is, and what it should be. It has changed from merely affecting publishers to affecting everyone, and it seems to many 'natural' and 'obvious' that individual users are committing willful and egregious crimes. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the parent post accepting the sad truth--"Downloading copyrighted material that you have not purchased is a crime."--wholeheartedly.
Re:Free warez, music and movies = well being WHAT! (Score:2, Insightful)
"So in your mind the well being of your fellow countrymen and women depends on the free and unfettered distribution of warez, music and movies?"
Answer:
Well being = not being thrown in jail for two years for a victimless crime.
The companies that are claiming losses are companies distributing music and movies but since the internet these information distributors are completeley useless and should be putten out of their misery as soon as possible and if sharing copyrighted material is losing them money, GREAT!
Then I can feel good about dl'ing my daily dose of warez knowing that Im helping bringing down a complete waste of resources such as SMAIS and MPAA and RIAA and all those fucking abbreviations.
PS. I would also like to mention that in Iceland we have 5 local TV channels and most of the stuff I download is something I couldn't even see here if I wanted to pay normal price for it.
Re:Going in Circles (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better Idea.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Information would be a pure public good then. Like paying for national defense, you couldn't privately deliver such a good since people could enjoy national defense by allowing their neighbours to pay for the army. Everyone could similarily mooch though, thus a pure public good is necessarily provided for by government.
It is possible, if people do not want to create content although I see open source software alive and well without such incentives, government too can provide incentives, as they do with other pure public goods mentioned.
How would such a system work? Who knows, although it is rapidly looking better in comparison to the alternative DRM future, police state and tech phobic RIAA corporations' view.
"Never gonna happen, though...
Um, simple majority is easy enough. Go for it
Re:Capturing Terrorists (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Make up your damn minds.... (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA (To Random User): We have proof you were sharing 50,000 songs on Kazaa. We're going to sue you for $150,000 per song. Keep in mind that we have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers should you choose to defend yourself.
Granny: What? I don't even know what Kazaa is! Let me call a lawyer.
Lawyer: You want to fight the RIAA? Well, you'd probably win, but my legal fees may range into the tens of thousands of dollars. That is, if the RIAA doesn't appeal or stall in court. Then it could cost more.
RIAA: It seems you are denying your crimes. Very well, we're feeling charitable today. If you fess up, we'll settle for $2,000. We're letting you off easy.
Granny: Defending myself with cost me at least ten grand. I should take the RIAA's deal, even though I haven't done anything.
Re:Better Idea.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Information would be a pure public good then. Like paying for national defense, you couldn't privately deliver such a good since people could enjoy national defense by allowing their neighbours to pay for the army. Everyone could similarily mooch though, thus a pure public good is necessarily provided for by government.
Think about your argument. The production of information would then necessarily depend upon the initiative and regulation of the government. What kind of world would that look like? What result do we see today from government-mandated projects? Effective? Productive? Affordable?
Can you imagine the Department of Information, right next to the Department of Defense? I can't even begin to express the horror of that statement.
Re:Explain something to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, and bear with me here because I'm about to express a pretty anti-establishmentarian opinion that I think a lot, lot, lot of people implicitly agree with but just don't realize they do yet:
(2) The RIAA and MPAA are basically trying to control and deathgrip culture. There is so much culture out there, and it's completely impossible to "pay" for it all in discrete, bite-sized chunks. If I, or most people I know "paid" for all the music we listen to, we would have spent all out moneys a very long time ago... We pay for concerts, t-shirts, and other material goods, we give tips and random cash to people we meet on the street who are selling CDs or performing or have cool websites. Hell, I would even pay for rare or difficult to find sets online if they were cheap enough and it was worth my time to do so (and of course high-quality, no-DRM). But I'm not willing to constantly keep throwing money to buy "music" or "video" as a set of etherial bits... And I'm not willing to pay to get something I might listen to a few times and then forget. However, once I *do* get some bits, I want to share it with anyone who cares to watch or listen because I'm spreading culture, and I expect them to reciprocate.
Keep in mind, I probably don't actually have any music by RIAA artists (though I don't really rigirously check). And some of the hip hop I listen to actually encourages you to "put it up on the Internet / and pump it outside" -- the artists *want* people to have the music, any way they can. They know money will come with recognition, and not necessarily by putting a stranglehold on distribution of the digital bits representing the music itself.
There's no real moral reasoning behind this -- it's simply my gut feeling and strong belief. It's how I feel about my culture and its spread. And I see this feeling amont the youth everywhere I look, too.
Re:Or possibly more like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Burglary and murder involve actual physical loss of property, death, or dismemberment.
Sharing music does none of these things. It's similar to the argument of losing data when Windows crashes--there's no liability because there's no real harm. But we, the consumers, don't get the privelege of an EULA at the point of sale of music: "You, as the retailer, accept all risk that I, the consumer, am going to do what I darn well please with your product."
I support intellectual property. Music CDs and video DVDs are not intellectual property. They are BAIT. Why should we protect a business model that hands out worthless pieces of plastic with the words "don't share me" printed on them? Aren't we all familiar with the psychological studies of the window with the words "don't look here" printed on it? What do we honestly expect people to do?
There is nothing intellectual about selling a product which is easily copied, shared, and redistributed and then acting as if it's a criminal surprise when people (*gasp*) copy, share, and redistribute it. The medium is JUST ASKING FOR IT.
Stop using my tax dollars to support a childishly naive business model. No one but the media industry receives this type of consideration.
Re:Better Idea.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I understand you correctly, you're advocating socializing the entertainment and software industries, two industries which hold lots of IP.
Naturally, many folks would like to see somebody else's career socialized while they continue to pursue filthy lucre on their own. A good test for anybody advocating that somebody else's revenue stream become socialized is to ask oneself if one would be happy if one's own industry went that way. Would you be satisfied with your income being converted to a fixed government wage, determined by law and subject to the whims of the political climate?
For such a change to occur, it's not enough that Slashdotters want musicians to relinquish the right to sell their stuff on their own terms and covert to a socialized, government-run compensation; the musicians will have to want it, as well. There are already clues to how musicians in general feel about this. Generally speaking, musicians still want recording contracts, and they have the same financial aspirations that you and I do. Compare the breadth and quality of material and the overall user experience of, say, the iTunes Music Store vs. Magnatune [magnatune.com], an "open source" label.
Re:net traffic in Iceland fell 40 per cent (Score:3, Insightful)
but they used a extremely open system like direct connect because it's a) handy b) they didn't think they would get caught.
Re:net traffic in Iceland fell 40 per cent (Score:3, Insightful)
I put about as much stock in that statistic as I do in Microsoft-sponsored comparisons between Windows and Linux. In other words, the number might conceivably be accurate, but we can't count on it, because the source has a (huge) conflict of interest.
Please, say it with me... (Score:3, Insightful)
"You have no right to other people's IP"
You may obtain a property right in that IP if you agree to the asked-for price. If you do not pay the asked-for price, you are misappropriating someone's property. Again, for the love of God, get it through your head, you have no right to someone's IP.
-truth
Re:Better Idea.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Expect production (you know - making a real physical product, like a house or a car), services (haircuts, car service, etc.), and entertainment (I don't have a 20-meter wide movie screen in my home, do you ?).
In fact, the only really affected worldy pursuits would be entertainment industries and software providers.
I'm not saying that abolishing copyrights completely would neccessarily be a good idea, just that it wouldn't be the end of civilization.
Because either you need it, or someone else needs it enough to pay you for it, or you think you can make money selling services related to the product. Or because you want fame and recognition.
For fame ? For the ego stroke of admiring feedback ? For the sense of accomplishment ?
I've only written short stories, and only about a dozen of them. I did it because I wanted to contribute something to the online community I was a part of back then, and for the ego stroke of getting feedback. No, I'm not providing a link to them, because I plan on rewriting them.
Considering the amount of text one can find online, I'd imagine these to be a powerfull enough motivating force to keep the culture going...
Of course, most of the online writings are terrible in quality, but that isn't really different from published texts, now is it ?-) Besides, I feel a new business idea forming - a recommendation service, where real human beings shift through the endless sea of online content and provide links to the true gems for their subscribers.
Same as above, plus as a commercial about your skills, in the hopes of getting a patron/concert.
Also, see Elfwood [elfwood.com], an amateur fantasy- and sci-fi art gallery with written works too. Quite a lot of the more talented artists there imply that they might not be completely averse to taking commission work. Of course, the art there is copyrighted and can't be distributed without the artists permission, but it is free for anyone to view.
One of the neat things about computers and the Internet is that they reduce the need to invest money in such endeavours. To publish online, all you need to invest is time, tears and sweat - but your wallet is safe.
Why would you need a publisher, if you can just upload the fruits of your labor to your website ?
Why do you think the publishers are so scared about p2p, anyway ? Hint: it's not the artists they fear for.
There seems to be quite a lot of legal music available online. So, presumably, you can get get music produced even without record companies. I'm not an expert at music production, thought, and can't claim to know what steps are required to produce it, exactly speaking. Perhaps someone else can comment on this ?
Personally, I'd think that the creators life + 10 years (to keep people from being assassinated for their music or whatever) with only real human beings being counte
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't mean that these people think the concept of copyright is flawed, just that its implementation leaves something to be desired. Hence record numbers of acts of non-compliance.
Max