Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Litigation Only Spurred On P2P File Sharing

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:23AM (#38033852)

    Since when does someone take it upon theirselves to demand royalties from people that trade movies by lending their discs over Sneakernet?

    Shut these bums down. They don't make a living or contribute to the quality of life to others around them other than to exact fines and fees with the same precision as the Zetas and IRS.

    • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:51AM (#38033940)

      Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

      And the content industry certainly does go after those persons mass producing unlicensed copies.

      • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:12AM (#38034010)

        Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

        *shrugs* it takes about 10 minutes for me to transfer an ISO to my hard drive, stripping the region coding as I do it, and then about 30 minutes to transcode that ISO into an MKV file that includes all of the soundtracks and subtitle information. If I'm not worried about the storage space, I can skip the second step. With a reasonably fast Internet connection, it *could* equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours, and the main difference between what I'm doing and downloading it off the Internet is that instead of downloading it from a host that might actually be owned by the content holder, I'm creating my own digital copy of it. That I don't then upload it to the Internet is mostly because I can't be bothered to do so, because I don't really care about that side of things. I am digitizing movies so that I don't have to devote a large amount of shelf space to their storage, not because I believe the information wants to be free.

        You don't seriously think that the people doing the actual ripping/uploading (who are the people that the industry should *really* be going after) are *buying* dvd's, though, do you? All of the movies I rip, I own (physical copies and everything, just not kept in my living room), but most of the people who actually do the ripping/uploading are getting the movies from some form of sneakernet. Either they work at a video store and have physical access to the DVD before it's released, or they work in a theatre as a projectionist or something, and can rip the DVD while it's still in theatres, or they have a friend who does the above and gets the DVD for them. Most of them are not going to retail outlets and actually *buying* the DVD so that they can rip it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          I don't see what your reply has to do with my post - the OPs point was "well, if they are against X, then why arent they equally against Y?" when X and Y differ hugely in the effort required to do the same "damage". Someone lending over sneakernet is going to have to work pretty damn hard to lend to the same number of people that one person spending 5 minutes uploading to isohunt can end up distributing to over the internet.

          Thats why X is more rigorously persued than Y.

          • by jedidiah (1196)

            The US postal service still remains the largest and most effective channel for the dissemination of digital video. While transferring a SINGLE work may be slow and tedious, one is not merely limited to a single work. Works can be replicated by the hundreds and what ever speed the process needs. Much like distributed methods in the ether (like BitTorrent), stuff can still quickly replicate.

            They were doing this 200 years ago. Never mind now.

            The proces doesn't have to be "conventional" or "instantaneous".

            Peopl

            • by Teancum (67324)

              Regardless of what other advances have come about through digital communications infrastructure, by far and away the fastest method of transferring large quantities of information is still via courier.... aka the postal system or related groups like FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc.

              Nothing beats the transfer speed of dumping a whole bunch of data onto a hard drive/high capacity thumb drive and then mailing that data in a physical box to some other place. I wouldn't recommend sending it by cargo container on a ship goi

        • by drakken33 (859280) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:56AM (#38034126)

          I don't want to sound picky but my local theatre doesn't use DVDs for it's digital content. It uses heavily DRM'd files supplied on a portable HDD or beamed in via satellite. The keys are sent separately as and when needed and expire in anything from a week or more. The files can be 200GB+. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a digital copy from a theatre but it's not easy.

          • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @01:21PM (#38035418) Homepage

            And individually watermarked and tamper-proofed, if it did happen they'll know exactly when and where. I've never heard of anyone actually getting a raw 4k rip from these things, if they did I'm sure it'd come to halt very soon. Besides, almost nobody can watch it - I guess the people with 30" displays could get 1440p but 4k televisions and projectors practically don't exist. With the price of 4k equipment you might as well license yourself as a cinema too, won't be that much more expensive. Size would be an issue too, I think for the last of the LotR movies it was 900GB, not sure about that. They're going out practically uncompressed, no artifacting there.

            • by drakken33 (859280)

              My local cinema only has 2k projectors and I don't know whether they get 4k content or specific 2k content. Their files work out to 100GB - 150GB per hour so I'm guessing they're getting 2k.

            • by jandrese (485)
              I would assume that if someone got the 4k file and decrypted it they would re-encode it before sharing.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          On a lot of DVDs there is a clear warning before any of the content actually plays that says it is illegal to copy to DVD even for home use... and then it says all that stuff about Felonies and the FBI and Interpol. Here is I think an apt point about all of this: in Russia and China they pirate DVDs by the truckload and then just redistribute the movies without paying any royalties at all. It is a common practice. But the lawyers in America who make money on these kinds of cases can't do anything about
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

        And the content industry certainly does go after those persons mass producing unlicensed copies.

        Who are these anti-social jerks who have the power to spread knowledge, information and culture to all intellectually starving people on earth, but choose not to wield that power to make the world a better place by sharing with their fellow humans over the Internet, but instead use the sneaky Sneakernet to share with an elite of a select few? They are obviously enemies of decent humans everywhere and should have their discs confiscated and put to better use!

      • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:25AM (#38034444) Homepage Journal

        Uhhhh - what exactly does it matter if tens of thousands get their copies in a few hours, or if it takes ten or twelve days? The end result is precisely the same - everyone who really wants a copy will get one.

        Oh - you may object that "Well, SOME people won't want a copy badly enough to put the wear on their sneakers! P2P actually ENCOURAGES people to make copies." And, I would say "Bullshit!" My wife and sisters had extensive libraries before any of them had access to internet. One would rent a movie, and make two, six, or twelve copies, depending on who they thought the movie would appeal to. I'm not sure that I could load out a tractor trailer with all their stuff, but I could most certainly load two smaller local delivery trucks. Shelves and shelves, loaded with old VCR movies.

        In short - the time involved makes no difference at all. If anything, the internet has saved me from further inundation by VCR, CD, and DVD recordings. Now, everything is stored on hard drive! Imagine that - entire libraries, stored on a hard drive! I love it!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:29AM (#38033864)

    I learned that this existed and that you could pirate stuff from all the controversy the RIAA and MPAA have done. If they never got sue happy and had absolute no morals, I probably wouldn't even know you could do this.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:34AM (#38033878)

      :O Are you aware at least, that there's porn on the internet, too?

      • by ifiwereasculptor (1870574) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:05AM (#38033978)

        When celebrities start suing .xxx domain owners he'll find out...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You'd be suprised how oblivious the average user is, to what can be found on the Internet.

        • by DaleSwanson (910098) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @05:33PM (#38036960)

          You'd be suprised how oblivious the average user is, to what can be found on the Internet.

          About 2 years ago, I was taking a low level math class and, one day while in the library, someone from the class came up to me and asked if I could help with some of the homework he was stuck on. It became clear that his problem was he forgot how to deal with fractions, eg, he couldn't add two fractions with different denominators.

          I told him he should brush up on his fraction rules. A good idea would be just to google 'fraction review' and read through a few of those, then something like 'fraction review problems' and do a bunch of practice problems. His response was: (slightly amazed) "they have that on the internet?"

          Given how often I used the internet as a reference for anything and everything this legitimately boggled my mind.

  • The threat of litigation is not stopping everyone from downloading movies and games, the torrent sites are still running. And there are FTP sites popping up that have movies on them as well, piracy is everywhere.

  • All in a bucket (Score:2, Interesting)

    by EEDAm (808004)

    The article reads like an undergraduate who wants to write a shit-kicking thesis and is really oooh excited about things but has entirely failed to do anything more than throw a few disjointed ideas in a bucket. It is peppered with lines that sound good but don't stand up to a couple of seconds examination: " So once the Napster litigation made P2P programmers aware of the rules about knowledge and control, they simply coded Napster's successors to eliminate them." I mean WHAT? Programmers coded out rules

    • Re:All in a bucket (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rudy_wayne (414635) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:59AM (#38033966)

      And at the heart of it, the article offers no causative argument that litigation spurred on file sharing. At best it observes that file sharing increased in the era after litigation but it falls down entirely in showing any causation rather than correlation.

      I had never heard of Napster or P2P filesharing and had no idea that it existed until I read about Napster getting sued. I want to thank the RIAA for letting me know about this wonderful resource. I'm sure that there are many millions of people who share my similar experience.

    • Re:All in a bucket (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rtb61 (674572) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:10AM (#38034000) Homepage
      You forget that part of the litigation process was the advertising that they started forcing on people who bought legal copies. Who can forget the message of, you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag, you wouldn't steal a television, and of course, you wouldn't steal a movie. Hmm, but yes I must admit given the oppurtunity I would not have the slightest qualm about copying a car, copying a handbag or, copying a television and of course now where does that leave me when it comes to copying a movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0CkJgHKEY8 [youtube.com]. This and other stupid anti-piracy made it far cooler to copy than to be lame and buy.

      The other big thing about the copyright litigation process, it was all pretty obvious it was a quick dirty extortion route to law, poor people where targeted for publiclity stakes and then the lawyers got greedy. The gathering of evidence was laughable, nothing beyond the most weak of circumstantial evidence was submitted, more often than not when challenged the court cases failed.

    • Re:All in a bucket (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geoskd (321194) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:16AM (#38034026)

      The article reads like an undergraduate who wants to write a shit-kicking thesis and is really oooh excited about things but has entirely failed to do anything more than throw a few disjointed ideas in a bucket. It is peppered with lines that sound good but don't stand up to a couple of seconds examination: " So once the Napster litigation made P2P programmers aware of the rules about knowledge and control, they simply coded Napster's successors to eliminate them." I mean WHAT? Programmers coded out rules of "knowledge and control"???? No, the rules of law on knowledge and control exist independently in jurisprudence. How do you "code out" something that's entirely outwith software? Nonsense.

      I understood perfectly what the author was writing about in reference to knowledge and control.

      Specifically, in regards to knowledge: The authors of Kazaa and Napster had the means, as a consequence of the design of their systems, to know what was being transmitted, by whom, and to whom it was going. This constituted knowledge of their customers actions. Most modern P2P software has no central server and no communications between the users of the software and the authors of the software. In short, the authors have no idea who is using their software, where they got it from, or what they are using it for. More importantly: they have no practical way of knowing.

      Control is even easier to understand in this context. Napster and Kazaa relied on a central server to provide the service. These services had the ability to control what was being listed, or transmitted using their software. By virtue of their licensing, they had the ability to control who even used it. P2P eliminated almost all central control by way of servers, and the open source licensing ensured that anyone could use the software regardless of their intent. This means that even if the makers of xyz P2P software wanted to halt its use entirely, they would be legally (and logistically) incapable of doing so. They no longer have any practical control over their software, its users, or how they use it.

      And at the heart of it, the article offers no causative argument that litigation spurred on file sharing. At best it observes that file sharing increased in the era after litigation but it falls down entirely in showing any causation rather than correlation. There are other daft arguments about the Supreme Court making laws: it doesn't, de Tocqueville et al were rather insistent it couldn't; rather its interpretation of law clarifies the law already in place, which show the author is floundering on the subject matter.

      The article made a fairly persuasive argument about the likely underlying reasons for growth of online piracy *in spite* of the massive legal efforts of the **AA organizations. The articles unstated assumption is, that when faced with and defeated by such a large scale legal assault, the pervasiveness of piracy should have decreased. instead, as we know it increased. The article then provides a very persuasive explanation for the reasons why this legal assault failed. In the past many other similar assaults on piracy have succeeded. You don't see a whole lot of counterfeit goods in this country because of the reasons listed in the article. Online piracy is rampant however.

      Weak.

      Better than your response which was weak and trollish.

      -=Geoskd

      • by EEDAm (808004)
        I see what you mean about knowledge and control; it's poor english suggesting the *rules* of knowledge and control were coded out. Anyway, offering direct criticism of an article based on reasons (which you are free to disagree with) doesn't make you a troll, it makes you critical. The point is that while there was growth in file sharing, it argued that the approach to litigation directly led to that *growth* in file sharing. I found no argument in the article that showed that one led to the other and it
        • by whoever57 (658626)

          I didn't see any evidence that linked the *growth* of file sharing to litigation approach. Who's to say it wouldn't have happened anyway?

          The headline and introduction of the article doesn't seem to match the final conclusion which is (my emphasis):

          The mismatch between the law's physical world assumptions and the realities of the software world meant that the law created to respond to the challenges of P2P file sharing led to the opposite of the desired result: a massive increase in the availability of P2P

      • by Kjella (173770)

        Control is even easier to understand in this context. Napster and Kazaa relied on a central server to provide the service. These services had the ability to control what was being listed, or transmitted using their software. By virtue of their licensing, they had the ability to control who even used it. P2P eliminated almost all central control by way of servers,

        Actually, the completely anarchist P2P networks weren't doing all that great and were extremely spammed and filled with leechers. It was centralized services around servers like DC++ hubs and BitTorrent trackers that really drove P2P adoption, it's just that the developers had nothing to do with the servers anymore. Hell I just checked and TPB is now ranked #76 on Alexia and 15 of those above are google.* so in reality more like 60th most popular website in the world. Just like TPB split from the tracker se

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's not quites as bad and your pedantic rant makes it out to be. Consider the following.

      Paragraph 1: Change "code out" to "code around" (i.e. make them pragmatically unenforceable) and you get the point that was trying to be made

      Paragraph 2: Ironically, I can't tell what you're trying to say other than that the writing/reasoning is sub par and that somehow the two are equated so I'll skip this one.

      Paragraph 3: Wow, how's your first year of law school going? Just kidding. Okay maybe you have a point wit

      • by EEDAm (808004)

        You meant "It's not quite (no 's') as bad as (not and) your pedantic rant makes it out to be."

        How's that for pedantry? :)

        Just kidding before you get all red-misty. The point about making law matters because in fact the legislative *has* directly legislated in respect of file sharing and that's where this particular gun should be pointed not at the judiciary. The idea that the Supreme Court makes law is the sort of thing that gets set to high school students but has a clear answer (it doesn't) even if it

    • Just as the internets route around damage, P2P programmers treated the legal structure that took down Napster and coded around it. When the legal system further invented nonsense rules, the programmers once again coded around them.

      As to the article itself, it didn't create laws, it created a DOCTRINE. Inducement is not found in the copyright laws in question but was something made out of whole cloth by SCOTUS. Kinda like the Kelo decision. Or the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Or almost every

    • by greenbird (859670)

      And at the heart of it, the article offers no causative argument that litigation spurred on file sharing.

      I'm confused as to why you think there needs to be definitive causative evidence that the lawsuits increased file sharing. The object of the lawsuits was to reduce or eliminate file sharing. Whether they directly caused an increase is more an aside to the fact that there was a tremendous increase despite them. Thus they failed miserable in their objective while having very large other negative side effects.

      • by EEDAm (808004)
        Well it's because the title of the article is "How litigation only spurred on p2p file sharing" - the causative assertion is the basis of the article and what I (and others) are criticising it for.
  • by geogob (569250) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:47AM (#38033926)

    Just finishing reading this long page on how the file sharing litigation process is flawed, I feel little enlightened. Most of the observation presented have been discussed here over a decade ago. What's interesting though, is where these observations are coming from. Maybe someone on the legal size has finally opened his eyes.

    If that's good or bad for file shares and file sharing app creators is another story though.

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:07AM (#38033982)

    Doesn't anyone take economics anymore?
    Every product has a price that is based on supply and demand.
    Digital media once created has a verry high supply ability. Thus it's cost is lowered. Digital content providers are charging more then what supply and demand curve intercection states. And legal controls that are trying to maintain this off balance. So... Blackmarkets are naturally formed to provide goods at their actual costs.

    This is the same thing with drugs, unpasturized milk, under the counter workers...

    • comment.
    • by Strange Ranger (454494) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @11:19AM (#38034664)

      This is it. The whole article is -maybe- good reading for lawmakers and prosecutors who want to have better hindsight specifically regarding P2P laws. But it doesn't get at the heart of why P2P exploded. To understand that, just look at marijuana growth and potency over the last 30 years. It's a plant, so it takes longer to "program", but the stuff available now is orders of magnitude more powerful than the "dirt weed" available in the 70s and 80s. Law enforcement went after fields, and weight, and volume, so growers made ever increasingly potent strains. Powerful strains that grow fast and explode with buds when they reach a foot tall. Now they can make the same amount of THC in a basement in a couple months that before took a field and a year. This same phenomenon exists with prostitution, porn, gambling, horse power limits on outboard motors, large volume toilets "from Canada", etc etc.
       
      YOU CAN'T EFFECTIVELY CURB DEMAND WITH LAWS.
       
      All you can do is alter the supply chain.
       
      Instead of FINALLY learning this basic tenet of human civilization that has been presenting itself for literally millenia, this time we're going to blame the internet.
        Wonder what we'll be blaming in 3027?

      • That is partially propaganda and partially true.

        If you look at drug articles for other drugs, they show a consistent of claiming this is more pure/powerful than ever before but the percentage of purity quoted is about the same going back to the 80's.

        They also claim that this particular bust will put a serious dent in the drug and raise prices. But the prices have dropped consistently since the early 80's.

        Think about this on pot.

        If you want to get stoned (drunk), then you would need to use less of it as it

    • by mpe (36238)
      Digital media once created has a verry high supply ability. Thus it's cost is lowered. Digital content providers are charging more then what supply and demand curve intercection states. And legal controls that are trying to maintain this off balance. So... Blackmarkets are naturally formed to provide goods at their actual costs.
      This is the same thing with drugs, unpasturized milk, under the counter workers...


      Whilst there are similarities there are also differences. If drug prohibition were ended there w
      • You're only arguing implicitly that the efforts to reduce file sharing have been ineffective. What happens when you legalize what was once a black market is that the costs of avoiding the ban disappear and are recaptured by the buyers and sellers in the form of higher margins at lower prices, which can pay for increases in quality etc. If the ban is ineffective then those costs are small.

        Of course, if the ban is ineffective then maintaining it is a complete waste of resources on the enforcement side -- just

    • by vakuona (788200)

      The problem is that there is no cost to the one who isn't creating the content. So no, the black market isn't forming t provide the products at their actual costs. Black markets are forming because in this case, the replication costs are such a small component of the actual production costs. So it is almost better for one to not produce and take the risk that people may not like your product, and just sell copies of the successful products that already exist.

    • ... There is demand for unpasturized milk?

      Are people actively trying to get themselves sick or something? Where I live there's zero supply because it's banned from sale. (you have me doubting about our demand side of the scale though)

    • by jedidiah (1196)

      Alternatively, the use you can attribute to piracy is the theoretical maximum demand that you can possibly have from the product. HOWEVER, since entertainment has a highly elastic demand you can't relate the level of usage represented by piracy to any product offered at any price.

      Free can't be compared to non-free. It's the "infinite" part of the pricing and elastic demand. Charge the user just an extra quarter or penny and the situation is completely different mathematically.

      You really can't compare infini

  • Anyone who actually looked at the things for himself, instead of parroting what he heard (mostly from the media Mafia), always knew that you can't treat information like a physical object.

    But it should be obvious to everyone who ever copied a file. Or who knows about how "moving" a file is actually implemented with making a copy plus "deleting" the original. Where "deleting" actually means "forgetting", as in "we overwrite the pointer to its location in the storage" and sometimes as in "we overwrite the dat

    • by Shompol (1690084)
      Well said! They are in the business of "publishing" and "distribution", something that has been free since the 90s
  • If you go to Amazon, its listed at $115US for preorder.

    It sounds like an excellent read, and I'd pay about 1/10 the price (more or less).

    Dr. Giblin is there a place to buy this book at a regular price?

  • Weaponised Internet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:53AM (#38034120)

    It makes me think about recent events with the Arab Spring's use of technology, Anonymous, and Wikileaks. Are the little people (us) in essence weaponizing the internet against the powers-that-be? Ad-hoc mesh networks might be a fall-back when the powers-that-be realize that and try to switch it off.

    But especially with regard to Wikileaks. They say they've been stymied by the financial blockade of the big banks. So I wonder if there is any work being done on how to route around the financial blockade, since it seems to be the only thing that has remotely stopped the efforts of the little people against the powers-that-be.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "So I wonder if there is any work being done on how to route around the financial blockade, since it seems to be the only thing that has remotely stopped the efforts of the little people against the powers-that-be."

      That thing that Slashdot loves to hate on so much - Bitcoin. It is Bittorrent for digital money and money transmission.

  • Juror #13 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harvey the nerd (582806) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:24AM (#38034194)
    The real pirates and usurpers are the labels and -IAAs, just ask some of the real creators about their royalty checks from the labels. Copyright has become sheer extra-constitutional thuggery with ex post facto changes, favoritism, public subsidy, harassment, subversion and essentially unlimited terms. F-'em.
  • What do they want? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:36AM (#38034232)

    It hepls to think about who wants what:

    - music makers ultimately want to do music; they derive pleasure from doing that; it's their very nature to do so and to want to do it;
    - listeners just dig music; it is somewhat surprising people can appreciate music without being able to compose it, but somehow it happens; they'll get angry at what interposes itself between them and what they want -- just like any child...
    - music distributors couldn't care less about music -- they want profits, by any means they can get it (alas, there's a problem with vicious capitalism, but let's save it for another occasion); for them, creating scarcity is a way to boost profits; they also have this naïve idea that masses can be contained; it's a clear joining of evil intent with ignorance about how society works plus overestimation of their own power to control things.

    Misunderstanding one's own power, btw, is behind several disasters we met along the way in mankind's history, but let's save this, too.

    In the end, composers will resort to free music and donations, precisely as a way to get rid of distributors -- because these latter have been so obnoxious. As everyone can see in commerce, getting rid of middlemen is a nobrainer, which means distributors might consider what to do after they lose their jobs -- or, alternatively, desperately try to survive... the first measure being, of course, changing their attitude 180 degrees by:

    1. being really helpful to both composers and listeners;
    2. it follows, but let's say it: don't steal from both parties!
    3. stopping the bullying tactics -- that's suicide;
    4. having a nice agenda, being clear about it and sticking to it;
    5. disappear from the news: achieve the status of being accepted and keep a low profile.

    Actually, now that I think about it, this could work also for proprietary software companies and for Linux distros.

  • First, what happens when you tell someone you can't do something? They go off to do it. Forbidden fruit and all that.

    Second, content producers just don't want to let us buy stuff like any other normal product. Music and video come with DRM, so we can't make a backup copy (*cough*). It's not like they will provide me (outside of Disney) a replacement at a reduced price. Just give me an unencumbered disc/file. (And preferable at some type of reasonable price.)

    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      First, what happens when you tell someone you can't do something? They go off to do it.

      bryan1945, you can't murder anyone.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        First, what happens when you tell someone you can't do something? They go off to do it.

        bryan1945, you can't murder any RIAA lawyers.

        (Hey, it's worth a shot.)

  • Bravo!

    The world is a changing place. I believe through computers society has evolved ,en mass, to a path more beneficial to the species. Fighting nature is more futile than resisting "The Borg". The founding fathers were right in the beginning to protect NEW invention to the inventor for a limited 4 year span. Further ahead were the unforeseen inevitable crash of immovable object (individual ability to compute, copy, network and communicate to the world on a level playing

    • by flyneye (84093)

      While it is bad form to append ones post. I wish to point out that the above contains a vast run on sentence. I have, as a kindness left it unfinished so as to
      convey the jist and maintain the emotional content of the rant, whilst sparing the reader the longevity of the read and leaving the wonderful taste of the gist of it all on the tip of their tongue.

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @11:13AM (#38034644) Homepage Journal

    That the RIAA made a big stink about Napster in the early days is what caused it all.

    Until that happened hardly anyone in the general public knew it existed. The concept of getting 'free music' wasn't even in their minds, until then.

    Way to go RIAA for creating your own nightmare. Unless that was the goal, get it on the radar, then demonize it via the media and pay for legislation in a preemptive strike. ( that backfired... )

  • Just make everything over 6 months old available for a reasonable fixed subscription price and you will have no piracy, have simpler accounting (like when long distance calls became less expensive to give away unlimited than to track the calls).

    $20 a month for all songs that have been out 6 months.
    $20 a month for all books that have been out 6 months.
    $20 a month for all movies that have been out 6 months.

    You could probably push one of those categories up to $30 or $40.

    You might miss some on the high end (ca

  • I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wanzeo (1800058) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @05:38PM (#38036996)

    False. File-sharing started because there was no legal alternative. If something like iTunes had existed in the early days, people (including me), would have used it. When iTunes finally did come along, it had a nasty DRM. If it had been open, more people (including me), would have used it.

    Recently, I have been seeing more and more artists offering their music on their website without DRM and without a label. This makes me so happy, I usually buy their entire discography (if I like the music of course). It is trivial to offer music on a website, and I imagine artists have realized that people are much more willing to pay for something when they know their money isn't going to a record company.

    As for the litigation, that is just the noisy death throes of a once powerful industry, angry about becoming obsolete. It has had zero effect on my behavior (and I read Slashdot), and certainly hasn't affected most people's reasons for file-sharing.

  • by master_p (608214) on Sunday November 13, 2011 @07:43AM (#38040406)

    The price of a product is defined mostly by its perceived value, not by its production costs.

    That is why diamonds are so expensive.

    That is why paintings cost so much.

    That is why luxury cars can only be afforded by so few people.

    That is why certain areas like Beverly Hills is so expensive.

    And that is why digitial products have a price far above zero.

    Therefore, piracy is theft.

"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully." -- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Working...