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.'"
Capturing Terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Capturing Terrorists (Score:2)
Re:Capturing Terrorists (Score:2)
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!
Iceland becomes the world's Library? (Score:5, Interesting)
So why not just become the center of world trading in 'copyrighted' materials and take a microcharge of each trade? They'll get kicked out of the EU? Hardly likely. Brussells can be really boring on a small Eurocrat's salary and full-price media product can be mighty expensive (and will definitely be going up in price).
Better Iceland become the world's library than Vanuatuu, because that little island could just disappear in a typhoon and take all the servers and storage with it.
Maybe, you say, no one should be the world's center of 'illegal' trade in 'copyrighted' materials. Nonsense, that is a spin fantasy of the media giants who need inexpensive unofficial downloads as much as they need full-service 'all-fees-paid' fully-legit product sales.
When five companies control most of the world's media, it doesn't really matter if people buy the product at full copyright-paid Western prices or discounted 'pirate' prices. Either way they get all the money eventually because they are the only game in town. It's more important that people consume ever-increasing amounts of corporate media product. The money will get back to them. That isn't the case when there are thousands of small and medium-sized media companies globally. However that situation no longer exists and the media executives should revise their overall concept of how this new global framework works.
In a sense the reference in the parent to secret underground terrorist religious organizations is apt because these groups are the primary competition to the global media companies, especially in the developing world where 2/3rds of the population is under the age of 25. Hollywood and religious fanaticism don't mix all that well in the long term. Both compete for the leisure time attention span (and the loyalities) of the billions of new young people. In America, corporate Hollywood won because in the current political alliance between the major corporations and the religious right the religious community has always been the weaker partner.
Re:Iceland becomes the world's Library? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Iceland becomes the world's Library? (Score:4, Informative)
Iceland is not a member of the EU and doesn't have to folow it's utterly stupid fishing policy (wich is the biggest reason why Iceland is not a member) so the fishing is as good as it has been for years and it will be in the future.
"trans-Atlantic airplanes don't need refueling stops anymore."
The Icelandic Civil Avation Control Area has grait traffic. Also, Icelandair uses the Keflavik Int Airport (KEF) as a hub for their trans-atlantic flights (http://www.icelandair.is/routemap/index.html).
"They'll get kicked out of the EU?"
How can Iceland be kicked out if they are not even going to be members in the near future?
"Better Iceland become the world's library than Vanuatuu, because that little island could just disappear in a typhoon and take all the servers and storage with it."
Server storage? And where is the bandwith?
FARICE, the newest one of the two fiber-optic cables connecting Iceland to the rest of the world has the maximum bandwith of 720Gb/s and CANTAT-3 has the maximum bandwidth of 2,5Gb/s.
Is that enough for the whole world?
"When five companies control most of the world's media[...]"
There is actually a world outside the USA. Have you noticed it?
DC++? (Score:5, Informative)
FYI
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/faq/faq.php?dis
Re:DC++? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DC++? (Score:2)
I wrote a journal about it that mysteriously dissappeared... anyone know whats up?
net traffic in Iceland fell 40 per cent (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it's not the politically correct point to make at
That's a heckuva lotta file sharing.
And within that 2.5TB of data, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some pirated software [MSDN Universal, Autocad, Acrobat/Photoshop] that might interest the BSA [or whatever they call it in Iceland].
Re:net traffic in Iceland fell 40 per cent (Score:3, Informative)
what do you suppose the of the people on p2p did after they heard 12 people had been raided? stay online? hang around online with files on share?
(however.. this will in the long run once again achieve nothing.. they will just move into using some system where it's harder to make any proof who shared what, some waste/freenet like system probaly maybe with saturation enabled)
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, Informative)
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.
Industry? (Score:3, 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.
you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
they're helpless to pay $8 to see a movie in the theater?
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
I *hate* the RIAA as much as the next guy. But this *IS* the way that the RIAA *should* combat illegal file sharing. You don't go after the phone company to stop bomb threats. You *do* go after those calling in the bomb threat. How is this any different?
Don't want to get sued? DON'T BREAK THE LAW!!!
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.
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.
Re:you mean... (Score:2)
You're comparing the uploading of files to terrorism, more or less. There's a huge difference between the two. And yes, laymen are interested in the distinction between jail time and fines.
Re:you mean... (Score:2)
Again, lots of handwaving about the degree of their crime (excuse me, civil infraction) does not change the fact that they are BREAKING THE LAW. Terrorists? No. Lawbreakers? Yes.
Does the average person equate criminal with lawbreaker? I would venture to say yes. You say no. So what? THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do try to remember that IP is artificial, not real, property. IP only has the rights that we, the people, feel like granting it, within the defining clause of the U.S. Constitution that deals with patents and copyrights.
If we decide that music can no longer be copyrighted, then that's the law - period. With one stroke of a pen IP can be unmade just as it was made. You can't do the same thing with real property.
While you're
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.
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: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: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 gov
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)
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.
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there aren't over 6 billion people calling in bomb threats at any given moment. The sheer number shows the public believes the existing laws are horribly flawed and won't follow them.
Unfortunately if no one broke the law or risked being sued when unfair, unconstitional or otherwise improper laws were passe
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 numbe
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.
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Funny)
</sarcasm>
Re:you mean... (Score:2)
You can't compare live media with recorded media. Compare apples with apples and you have yourself a valid comparasion.
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?
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:Better Deal. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I'm comparing the masses freeloading off the hard work of others (musicians, artists, software engineers, writers) by stealing their work and then trying to legitimize it by saying that information should be free with that of minorities who were treated as slaves.
It's the same thing. Just because a huge group of people think s
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:you mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you mean... (Score:2)
KILLER!
Im going to go download "Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow" twice! Because I watched it twice in theaters!
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?
Re:Article Title (Score:3, Interesting)
And as a supreme irony, although RIAA - the enforcement organ that's responsible for bringing so much misery to so many American people - is short for Recording Industry Association of America, only one of its owners - Warner Music - can be said to have an American base.
The majority owners are EMI Group (UK), Bertelsmann AG (Germany), Sony Corp (Japan). and Universal Music Group (Vivendi Universal, France).
And Internet traffic... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And Internet traffic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And Internet traffic... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And Internet traffic... (Score:4, Funny)
I'll volunteer.
Iceland only has 12/0.4=30 Internet users.
There you go, authentic RIAA-strength math.
Re:And Internet traffic... (Score:2)
These people could have used up all the precious Icelandic Internet packets if they were allowed to continue.
Re:And Internet traffic... (Score:5, Informative)
However, the Register article was slightly misleading in implying that the traffic reduction was directly caused by the raid - it was more likely caused by the media coverage of the raid.
Basically, Joe Sixpacks all over the country read about the raids in their morning papers, paniced and turned off all their P2P apps. This includes the managers of the other DC++ hubs.
Traffic still hasn't returned to "normal".
And the UK are finally gearing up for lawsuits too (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/01/uk_to_sue
infiltrating networks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:infiltrating networks (Score:2, Informative)
'Best' Quote (Score:4, Insightful)
And people buying CD from artists under RIAA isn't either.
Make up your damn minds.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Make up your damn minds.... (Score:2)
This is a flaw in the justice system then (Score:2)
Re:Make up your damn minds.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Make up your damn minds.... (Score:2)
riaa lawsuits "don't own a computer" [google.com]
The first three links are:
1 - News on an RIAA lawsuit versus a man without a computer
2 - News on an RIAA suit against a woman without a computer
3 - News on an RIAA suit against a couple without a computer
And you get get all that just from reading the link descriptions.
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."
Re:Make up your damn minds.... (Score:2)
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.
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:Exactly (Score:2)
There is a difference.....
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
Please. Give it up. No really. Give it up.
The music industry is well aware of how easy it is to copy, rip, and share CDs. There is no secret here. Adapt or face the consequences. There is nothing realistic about trying to legislate from the high chair or toddler training toilet of business infantilism. They are well aware of the consequences--adapt and deal with it.
Give a person a cookie jar with a thousand cookies, let them keep the cookie jar forever, tell them to take only one
It's a shame... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's a shame... (Score:5, Informative)
Downloads which are local to Iceland are "free" (included in the lease of the ADSL line), but international downloads are rather expensive.
This is exactly why DC++, with it's centralized hub-based architecture was so popular in Iceland. Anybody who understood both technology and copyright law knew better than to connect to them though, for exactly the same reasons.
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)
Re:does _anyone_ understand what the RIAA is doing (Score:3, Interesting)
Except those youth are growing up in an environment where they've probably downloaded the music they listen to more than bought it. They're not likely to suddenly change and go to buying only. In fact they're more likely to stop buying music at all. Lawsuits aren't likely to faze the younger generation, espec
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:The RIAA suing copyright violators is *good* (Score:2)
The Revolution *WILL* be televised... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Problem? People still having kids (Score:3, Interesting)
Teenagers are the expendible infantry of the P2P wars.
Re:Like stepping on ants... (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone else have flashbacks to Peter Jackson's Battle of Pelenor Fields when they read that?
On the other hand... (Score:3)
I hate to side with the RIAA here, but don't you remember all the p2p networks screaming in court, "You can't blame us, we don't put pirate music on the internet, our users do!" Apparently the RIAA got the message.
If this were about the SCO lawsuits we'd all be crying for the distros and hardware vendors to indemnify us. I guess it's a little too late to ask Kazaa to take the blame for us.
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.
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 ...
Re:Explain something to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Domestic bandwidth usage stats (Score:2, Informative)
This is what we want! (Score:2)
These people are knowingly and willingly breaking the law.
This is much better than them trying to shut down the p2p networks/applications themselves.
elite club (Score:2)
I've said it before, I'll say it again.... (Score:2)
The corporations may be a bit severe in their approach, and IMO the RIAA's tactic of fining offenders through a pre-court settlement is something of a miscarriage of justice. But when press releases tell us about
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Editorialization (Score:2, Interesting)
"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.'"
At the risk of being modded troll, what is wrong with cracking down on people who are:
60% traffic drop (Score:5, Informative)
When they raided the 12 guys (and seized 11 terabytes of data) all the dc servers were shut down and immediatly MRTG graphs clearly showed about a 50-60% traffic between domestic connections.
We have long heen proud to say that we have very high percentage of net users here, about 95% (number pulled out of ass) of the country has the internet and DC isn't the only way Icelanders share copyrighted stuff.
In fact most people just get cd's from friends who download from DC or someother p2p sharing app.
So in our case most of the population is rampantly breaking copyright laws all the time and suddenly because of complaints from SMAIS 12 random guys are arrested and two of them held for 24 hours.
2 years in prison is the maximum punishment for a crime like this while murder is maximum 16 years and if anyone is convicted for a copyright violation in Iceland we are going to have to put the entire nation behind bars.
I'm personally disgusted that our government is even thinking about putting profits of american companies above the well being of the people it is supposed to serve.
Helpless men and women? (Score:2)
Until the law is changed, you know what you are up against if you share files you have no right to. We can disagree with what the RIAA is doing all day, and I certainly don't think that sharing a few songs is worth $5000 i
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!
bogus melodramatic story summary? (Score:2)
I just finished reading TFA, and the only two hits on google-news,
and I saw no explanation for the phrase "private local hub".
This phrase made it sound (to me) like the arrestees were on a LAN,
where the p2p traffic wasn't passing over the public net --
which, IF true, would be a lot more chilling.
About the title... (Score:2)
Or, one could say that the action had a chilling effect on privacy.
<gets ready for beating>
Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Weak analogy (Score:2)