The 10 "Inconvienient Truths" of File Sharing 587
54mc writes "The IFPI, an international recording industry organization, has released a list of Ten "Inconvenient Truths" of file sharing. Though the group has a vested interest, it's still an interesting read as it tears apart some of the most common arguments in favor of file sharing. Ars Technica follows up with a more thorough explanation of some of the points. 'Point five is an attempt to turn the "innovation" argument on its head. For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and "manufactured" celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away. And then there's point seven, which isn't an "inconvenient truth" at all but more of a rant against those who prefer giving copyright holders less than absolute control over reproduction rights. An "anti-copyright movement" does exist, but most of the critical voices in the debate recognize the value of copyright--and actually produce copyrighted works themselves (Lawrence Lessig, etc.).'"
Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
inconvenient truth #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Downloading. (Score:4, Insightful)
Number 11: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they were wildly successful doing so. In fact, it's not entirely new and represents something of a return to the patronage system of protegees. The best at their art were not necessarily the most famous then either.
Word fogging (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The whole list (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick responses... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Previous Russian law allowed AllOfMP3. It no longer does. So?
3) Copying a CD from my friend doesn't (yet) count as terrorism, guys.
4) Very few people care about the label behind their music, pirated or not.
5) So the labels can't afford small artists - Good thing they don't actually need labels anymore!
6) That would break the law. File suit, if you actually believe such BS.
7) Boo-hoo, I don't generate tax revenue. Hear the violins?
8) "Bought Pirate Products" - Change the subject, much?
9) The law already disallows piracy. Most people just don't care.
10) I've discovered over half of the artists currently on my playlist via questionably-legal means.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the same with any popular act. Instead of trying to discover some fresh artists they go with the "safe bet" and mass produce the over-produced clones in order to pad their wallets. As a business strategy is may seem sound. Some may argue that it even works. The problem is that because they are not going out and really cultivating new and different acts and are using other methods to exclude such music on our airwaves (payola, Clear Channel monopoly etc) we don't get to know if other acts would be as profitable for them or even more so. So their safe bet may be slitting their throat and many observing the trend in declining music sales points to this.
Point 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
11) So all that justifies:
a) A legal vendetta against a disabled single mom, children, dead people, etc.
b) Treating out customers like criminals
c) Trying to extort money from and/or destroy any channel the industry does not
control (like Internet radio).
d) Bribing lawmakers to extend copyrights ad infinitum.
e) Attempting to eliminate the legal concept of 'fair use'.
Re:The whole list (Score:0, Insightful)
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
They ignore the inconvienent truths such as....
If the product was available in a form and at a price people were willing to pay, they would buy it.
Record companies are refusing to adopt new standards and ideas that people want. Mp3 players are things that people really really like. They also want to be able to play that song anywhere. DRM music files do not allow that so they either rip the sings or pirate them.
song trading has went on forever. Mix tapes, trading Records or CD's etc.. has happened as long as audio tape existed. I traded Reels with friends of albums. (reel to Reel tape, way before casettes.)
Most P2P file sharing is garbage. Most people are not happy with the quality of the music they download, the id3 tags are wrong, the music is ripped with a crappy ripper (itunes or Media player) etc....
file sharing is "wrong" (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringment may be illegal, but "illegal" is not the same thing as "wrong."
When you pirate mp3s you're downloading communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of that spoof RIAA poster when you pirate mp3s you're downloading communism [museumofhoaxes.com].
You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
And being the free market the point of a company is to maximize shareholders profits and not too bring the next great artist to the spotlight. Sometimes being the minority in market (aka your taste vs the rest of the population) leaves you only the selection of fried burgers when you really want a great steak. It sucks.
But unless every adult in the world is going to start blowing all their money on stuff the teenage demographic will reign supreme!
The 10 Convenient Truths About File Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
2. It encourages innovation. While it might sound less than ideal from a public relations standpoint, file sharing encourages programmers and problem solvers to think of more interesting and innovative methods to circumvent the measures put in place, and it furthers the study of peer-to-peer technology. You went from Napster, to Kazaa, to bitTorrent, with massive leaps at each step.
3. It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain artists and one wants to know that they like the artist before they shell out the cash for a CD from Amazon or eBay. And lets face it, the radio stations will seldom, if ever, play bands like Screeching Weasel, Cara Dillon, Celtae, R.A.M.B.O., or even some fo the more popular people like Jann Arden or Sinead O'Conner and Sarah Brightman. In fact, case in point: Rage Against the Machine. I called a local radio station when they said, "ok, the lines are open, tell us what you want to hear, because this is a radio station powered by YOU!". I called and requested RATM, what did they say? "Oh, sorry, that is too hard for our listeners. I just said okay, and turned off the radio. Barely ever play it anymore.
4. It helps gain artist recognition and exposure. Had file sharing come along, how many of you might know who BoA or Ayumi Hamazaki are?
5.It forces artists to be more creative, and less like the Back Street Boys and Spice Girls. If everyone of the bands sound the same, it forces more people to look elsewhere for the music that fits their tastes.
6. It breaks the copyright holder's regime. I'm sorry, this is going to piss off a lot of individuals around here, since a lot of people pay lip service to the "benefiot" of copyright, but the system is fundamentally flawed. Ever since the Bono-act, the fact that you could "extend" an artificial monopoly is just plain WRONG.
7. It also helps bring artists that would have no exposure form the record labels to break into the mainstream (or at least get a few more listeners and feedback).
8. It exposes people to more than the drivel that comes off the radio today. I like to equate most music on the radio and that is being produced by the big labels as "dime store fiction". In other words, a waste of plastic. Now there is some music (in every genre) that isn't produced by the big name labels that is VERY good. This allows people not "in the know" about the "scene" to become exposed to it.
9. For the love of all that is HOLY, file sharing does not only mean music. Lots of stuff (that is public domain or otherwise free) is distributed via filesharing. Not to mention the amount of pr0n.
10. ??? & Profit! (sorry, I couldn't resist)
pro copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The whole list (Score:1, Insightful)
so, in conclusion, dont care
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The IFPI is essentially just trying to mindfuck people into believing that nothing needs to change in the music industry and everything needs to change with P2P file sharing. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle -- the music industry needs to learn a better model for making money and P2P file sharing networks need to develop methods of revenue generation that repays artists and producers, while at the same time allowing relatively free exchange of music for casual sharers.
If someone can come up with that solution, they will not only make everyone happy, but they will likely make themselves rich in the process.
Re:inconvenient truth #1 (Score:4, Insightful)
But... you ARE going to pirate it? Do you even LISTEN to yourself?
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The whole list (Score:5, Insightful)
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Aren't these counter to each other?
Layne
Re:Downloading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ten inconvenient answers (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Besides the obvious "so?" answer, they, too, gotta pay their ISPs. Given the traffic they got, that bill could be a tad bit more than the average person can earn with honest work (for the IFPI, this is usually less than 3000 bucks a month).
2. AOMP3 has a license from the Russian equivalent. Care to tell me why globalisation is only good if it works for the company and against the customer?
3. I don't respond to arguments based on terrorism or child porn. They get old and are usually based on thin air. Like in this case. Care to show me ANY kind of proof (or at least a forged statistic) where Ozzy has been buying his AKs with money he got from selling bootlegs?
4. A quite blatant generalisation. Fact: It's often impossible to get a "honest" version of some out of print indie song. Many would buy it, if they could. Though, if you take a look through the various "old school" musicians who took their time to build up a support base, you'll see that their CDs sell quite well, often despite (or maybe because?) they refuse to use DRM or other crippling means, despite their fans being able to get the material easily through P2P means. Yet still, they buy the song because they want to show the artist their support. Check album sales for reference.
I can understand, though, that it's hard to sell some overhyped crap of a noname that you'll drop the next month.
5. Yes, and since the internet has been your bane since the New Kids on the Block (that was in
6. Car ads praise the maneuverability and speed of their cars, are they now liable for bank robberies and their cars being used for getaways? Phone services offer pre-paid phones where you don't have to go through the hassle of filling out forms, are they now liable for those phones being used in kidnapping calls? And don't make me start about guns.
7. The copyright world doesn't either. It outsources jobs to sweatshops and siphons money off our youth. With the difference, that they DO know how the commercial world runs. Unfortunately, though, they know little about art.
8. No, it usually is caused by people not wanting getting their computer infested with spyware or other unwanted "goodies", or that the content simply doesn't work on their system because the industry fails to conform with a standard, and so they have to resort to other means to get to use what they bought. Not buying because one is not able to afford the content is rarely if ever a reason. Maybe ignoring students.
9. Most people realized that it's near impossible to navigate the copyright laws and that they're guilty of breaking a law anyway if they don't live like a hermit. So many thought, why bother trying? More laws will only make this effect worse.
10. Actually P2P software is a tool. I use it to get (and spread) new versions of Linux. MMORPGs spread their updates through them. Others find music in it, decide that it's good and go buy the CD. And of course there are those that don't discriminate and download simply everything there is, hunting and gathering is a strong impulse in the human. Generally, though, P2P tools are simply that, a tool. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad, it depends on the person using it. Like the cars, the phones or the guns.
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix and Blockbuster online have all the movies you can watch for about $20 month. You only have to walk to the mailbox.
You can find trailers and movie reviews online as well to help you decide how to spend your money.
Laziness is kind of a lame excuse.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
But, they used to buy MORE than they do now. And the form in which you usually buy it (say, on a CD) remains available. What's changed is that people are no longer willing to pay what the artists ask for their recordings because they've found an easy way to rip it off, instead. The number of people who really, actually, thoughtfully are downloading pirated copies so that they have a more flexible version of something they've actually purchased
Record companies are refusing to adopt new standards and ideas that people want. Mp3 players are things that people really really like. They also want to be able to play that song anywhere.
Unless, of course, you take into account the publisers that ARE starting to sell non-DRMed files for that exact reason. When you say "record companies," you say it like you're describing all of them accurately, and that you know exactly what they're all collectively going to be doing for the next 12 months. They're not a homogenous group, and they're busy working on it, and on retaining as customers the very artists that every seems to be happy to rip off.
song trading has went on forever. Mix tapes, trading Records or CD's etc.. has happened as long as audio tape existed. I traded Reels with friends of albums. (reel to Reel tape, way before casettes.)
And did you really have hundreds of thousands or millions or anonymous friends with whom you shared bit-accurate exact copies? Really?
Most P2P file sharing is garbage. Most people are not happy with the quality of the music they download, the id3 tags are wrong, the music is ripped with a crappy ripper (itunes or Media player) etc....
Oh, well, then that makes it OK, I guess, to rip off the really good quality stuff from someone else, then. Yeesh.
Well, I have a couple of minutes to spare... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. We know. We can tell because there are ads there.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
This is more of an inconvenient mistruth. i.e. it's technically true but highly misleading. AllOfmp3 had the money availalbe to rights holders. The rights holders refused. "Facing criminal proceedings" is very weaselly. It doesn't mean they're guilty. Reputable copyright maintaining companies such as Microsoft and Sony have also faced criminal proceedings. MS were found guilty. Sony settled over the rootkit fiasco, I believe.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
This has nothing to do with file swapping. There is considerably less sympathy for commercial pirates.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
And we don't care that we don't care.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
No it fucking doesn't! That's a filthy lie and they know it. The finances don;t work like that. It's not about money recieved it's about return on investment expected.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Ehhmmm... They provide a network connection. Are we ghoing to charge the labels with selling CDs to pirates?
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
The FSF is generally considered part of the "anti-copyright movement". Free software creates a lot of jobs. 8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
No. It's caused by a general ambivalence about the rights of considerably wealthier foreigners.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
More weasel words. What does "wrong" mean in this context? Most people know it's illegal. They form their own opinions on the ethics of it. Some people evidently consider it a greater "wrong" to spend money on stuff they don't have to.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Wow. An actual truth. What went wrong there?
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Total PR BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything referred to as "an inconvenient truth" automatically sets my BS meter going. This list of "truths" is pure PR bullcrap.
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric. This is the same industry who argues that listening to the radio is free, but makes millions if not billions of dollars on radio advertising. They run commercials in my market talking about how radio is and should continue to be free, and to please patronize the businesses being advertised, because YOU WOULDN'T WANT US TO START CHARGING YOU NOW, WOULD YOU??
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia. Er ... so? What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money. This one's really pathetic. Playing the terrorism card? That's just the bullshit cherry on the bullshit sundae. The point's been made already but it bears repeating: what does the sale of bootleg CDs have to do with file sharing on the internet? Furthermore, SOME TERRORISTS have used BANKS to launder their money. Guess we should all get rid of our savings and checking accounts, cause *gasp* we might be supporting terrorism!!! This kind of argument has no credibility because the whole "ohnoes terrorism!" argument has been overused so much that it no longer has any weight .. not even when it should be considered seriously.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label. Loaded language much? This list is replete with very badly biased language. Let me rephrase it: 4. People who share music digitally don't care what labels the songs they trade are. And all that is is a boo-hoo for the record industry. No, we don't particularly care about labels. We care about music. DEAL WITH IT.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars. HAHAHA! Ohh, so THAT'S what they did with all the obscene profits they made from the illegal overpricing of CDs all those years. They invested them in REAL TALENT! OMG where do I sign up to let them gouge me some more?
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale. Again, spin city supreme. ISP often advertise music as a benefit, and then let their users use them as they see fit. I fail to see how this is an argument against me wanting to share digital music with my friends and family. Try again.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little. Very few political movements create jobs, exports, tax revenues or economic growth. They exist to fight to enact change in laws or government. "Pontificating". "about which they know little". This is an ad hominem attack on people they disagree with, nothing more.
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners. Err, real piracy is caused by criminals who attack ships at sea, pillage, rape and murder victims (or sell them on the slave market), and this is a product of pure criminal greed and amorality. What, you meant file sharing? Oh, well yes, this is correct. People do not share music because they can't AFFORD it. They do it because it is FAIR USE and, if they're doing it on p
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:file sharing is "wrong" (Score:2, Insightful)
But please, let "us" not pretend that downloading illegal copies of copyrighted material represents some form of civil disobedience. It doesn't. It represents "us" once again taking the easy and apathetic route to instant personal gratification, which is incidentally the same behavior that keeps the corrupt government officials in Washington.
If you want change, then work for change. If you want to maintain the status quo, then keep downloading your music illegally, and tell yourself that you're really sticking it to the man.
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
They lost a sale, but not due to piracy. I didn't decide to download the music instead (I am much too lazy to deal with low quality, badly tagged, crap from a P2P system). They lost a sale because they are not providing their product in a form that I want to buy.
Re:Downloading. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, IANACrimelord, but how do you launder money by illegally selling counterfeits? Doesn't laundering money usually involve a business that at least appears legitimate?
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
The mafia does provide a valuable service. They give me protection for my business. It's just that if they weren't around, I wouldn't need the protection. Oh, you were talking about the RIAA and MPAA... what's the difference?
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The point of a company is to maximize shareholders profits and not too bring the next great artist to the spotlight."
And the point of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Seems to me that if a corporation is using the rights we grant it to perform in a way that abuses and undermines the reason we grant them their rights, revoke their copyrights.
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I'm only saying no to the *paying* part. The recording industry has screwed people for years, and now it's their turn.
>The truth is that the majority of people sharing music are the ones who have heard a song on the radio or TV or wherever, and decided they want that song. But they also decided they don't want to pay for it. I want a Ferrari, but I am not willing to pay the price, so I drive a Honda instead.
The day someone invents a car duplication device, you too can have a Ferrari. And why not?
A pirate, and I don't care (Score:1, Insightful)
The artist is already fucked; at least I can pay to see them live, buy a t-shirt, buy their music directly from them (if their contract allows)
I don't deny that I'm a thief: I rob from the rich (record labels) and give to the poor (me). I'm a small time operator stealing from Thievery Incorporated.
The real difference between the record labels and I: they use the tools they have (money, laws, business acumen, contracts, monopoly of distribution, overly-restrictive copyright law) to fuck the artists and the consumers, and I use the tools I have (P2P, BitTorrent, FreeRip) to fuck the record labels.
I also dumpster dive (I've gotten some great computer equipment over the years this way), root through the rich people's garbage for functional but outdated appliances, and I would never return money I found lying around in the street (and would probably throw the wallet away too). Feel free to denounce me for the po' white trash scum I am.
Terrorism! Terrorism! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of it is music that I never would have expected to even be out there. A 7th grade girls choir singing Rammstein, Radiohead and The Divinyls (Scala)? An experimental post-punk band reciting long treatices about the history of torture to music that frightens my parrot (TEXT)? And songs just as creepy assembled largely out of 1991 Gulf War news clips (Chris Burke)? A polka group whose biggest hit is "In Heaven, There Is No Beer" (Brave Combo)? I mean, it goes on and on.
I'd argue that point #5 is mostly correct for many P2P networks (Gnutella, etc), but not for all forms of file sharing.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, man, don't harsh the mellow! Otherwise, talentless shlubs like Pat Boone would have had to resort to giving handjobs at truck stops to get by.
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. Suppose people have a choice between the following:
- Downloading a piece of music for free.
- Paying the price they'd be willing to pay for that piece of music if they couldn't download it for free.
It is a trivial and charitable extension of their argument that if people have these two choices, they'll overwhelmingly pick to download for free over paying. It also follows that to the extend that people have the free download as an option, record companies will have to price their products upwards to be compensated for their work.You can argue that record companies are overpricing their product all you want, but as long as you don't recognize this basic economic matter, you're just being unrealistic. Even if you think they're being compensated too much, record companies still deserve to be compensated at some rate for the services they provide; so you must provide some mechanism that guarantees that they can be compensated for their services, by making it impossible for people to steal those services.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)