Court Action Does Not Reduce File-Sharing 233
gollum123 wrote to mention a BBC report that despite numerous court cases, litigation does not appear to be reducing the amount of file-sharing. From the article: "The level of file-sharing has remained the same for two years despite 20,000 legal cases in 17 countries. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI) said it was 'containing" the problem and more people were connecting to broadband."
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
The tighter they clench their fist, the more files will slip from their grasp.
But really, look at this logicaly. The record companies never thought they could stop this with law suits, they were forced to sue to keep the idea that downloading music is wrong in peoples heads. This is a rear-guard action while the big companies work on new business plan. Of course, whether those plans work or not is another story.
Re:Obviously (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
And pepsi is only ok to buy if you get liquor to go with it.
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright was always for the profitable production of various works; works being vynle records, tape casetts, music rolls, ect. It's come to the point where it's now on the experience of something, which it was never meant to be. But pioneering judges and profiteering politicians have sold their power for profit and in their attempt to gain an income, have sold off nearly all of their vested commodity.
Frankly, if you're sharing music, you aren't a bad guy. If you're on the streets of Chicago selling burned CD's and harddrives full of various works then yeah, your but should be busted because you're selling a product, not sharing an experience.
It may seem sad to some that we now have been spoiled by this technology. Frankly, technology has brought us closer together, and we have now nearly reached the ultimate goal copyright set out to achieve; a technology that lets everyone produce and spread experiences and media, for free. The new market, undoubtedly, will be for experience preservation. 89 cents to buy an MP3 is a bad business model; 89cents to gain access to someone's perminant music preservation service and $50 to order a hyper-long-lasting recording of it is going to be the new business model. Because of gnutella, I now have access to a breath and depth of information never before realized, and in the future, it will only exponentially increase. I can now hit a few websites and get enough books to last me for the rest of my life if I read them back to back, in mabye 2 or 3 days.
The recording industry cannot compete with technology so they've tried to destroy technology, and have thus far failed and will fail. The cost of producing media and experience has gone down and down and as it does we get closer to living in a completly virtualised and created reality with created experiences and created ideas.
Ownership and property will become obsolete. I look foward to the ultimate ego/identity dissolution experience it will be. Of course, there will be those who will refuse the change and will lead a path of destroying themselves and will try to drag everyone else under them. That's the basic idea behind revelations.
If we've got a problem with filesharing, wait until someone figures out a way to make a home-fabrication machine the size of a car that can produce anything a machinist can.
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a feeling that they'll declare victory no matter what happens in order to keep up morale and put up a good front. The same way both political parties in the US try to claim victory every two years. Anything else would make them look weak.
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
because breaking the law is alright if you are a child?
I think what you really mean to say is that from the day you realized that you could get the music for free, you decided it was cheaper to go that way than buy the music you like.
can you believe that some people thought CD's were worth 18 dollars a pop because of the incredible leap in sound quality and ease of tr
Re:Obviously (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep.
Unlike some people, I have NO problem with the music they produce. I'm one of those losers that like Green Day. I like mainstream music like Dashboard Confessional, Fall Out Boy, or even Justin Timberlake. Big fucking deal. Sue me.
However, I can't buy msuic from them on principal. Just like I wouldn't buy blankets from the online Al-qaeda shop, I can't buy music from them. Yes, an extreme example but it lays out my point in black and white:
I don't buy things/support people/companies I think are "true evil".
I don't buy from Walmart, I don't buy music from the RIAA, and I don't buy ten year old girls from the local human trafficker.
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were truly taking a principled stand, you would stop listening to the music altogether. It seems like you are trying to justify knowingly breaking the law with the reason "I like it." Interesting principled stand: "But I like it...."
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the statement of a principled stand even stronger if you actually do like the product? If you didn't like the product, you wouldn't have bought it anyway, so how is that a statement? If you do like the product but refuse to buy it because of the ethics of the
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
If you were truly taking a principled stand, you would stop listening to the music altogether.
Can't speak for the poster of the grandparent, but why would you need to stop listening to the music altogether? I haven't bought a major-label CD new since 2001. The last ML CD I bought new was Depeche Mode's "Exciter" (which, as it turned out, wasn't very...). Since, I've bought some indie label CDs new, but mostly I buy all CDs used. Neither the labels nor the artists who support them get any cut from th
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
i have no idea what day you're talking about, was it 1 day after the september 11 attacks? was it 16 days before christmas? nobody can tell since you americans always have to have your own fucking way of doing things, incompatible with the rest of the world.
That's funny because I can parse it whether it's written 9/12/01 or 12-sept-01 or 2001-09-12. I guess Americans are just smarter than everybody else. (Although, for the record, I was born in the U.K. and have lived in the U.S. most of my life. It'
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
Next to stardate, 12 Sep 01 is clearly the best format. 2001-09-12 is just arbitrarily repositioning them so it's YEAR-MONTH-DAY instead of MONTH/DAY/YEAR(OPTIONAL).
Re:Obviously (Score:2, Insightful)
Down with the RIAA! Down with copyright!
Re:Obviously (Score:2, Funny)
It does not beg the question (Score:2)
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
I don't think that's a phrase you should say around the RIAA, they might.
I do like the last section, DRM is misunderstood and flexible. Of course it is, or not. I think "legal" sales of digital music would increase if it was sold in the form of unrestricted 320kbps mp3 for 99cents. That way the paying customers, or 'criminals' to the RIAA, can do whatever they want with it. I don't give away things I paid for. If for some reason I ever purchased a song in some digital format, even un DRMed, I would
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
"Big fucking deal. Sue me."
Heh. Give them time, they'll find you :) They won't sue you for liking their stuff (hey, to each his own, eh?), after all -- millions upon millions of the teeming America pop culture crowd love the stuff. Once they read your post though and realize you must be downloading it (since you don't buy their stuff and you still love their stuff, surely you can't possibly resist the temptation to get it all for free?), you'll be hearing from one of their "settlement centers."
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry, just wait a while and they'll give you your turn.
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
Like your music, you get your ten year old girls for free online?
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
Seriously though, relatively few people that I know (and many of those are engineers and professional people of one sort or another who you'd think would know better) have even heard of the RIAA. When I attempt to talk about the subject, I get a. a blank stare or b. "but they gotta protect the artists!" or c. "who cares." All they know is that there are a bunch of companies called "studios" and that, somehow, "studio
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
So, what you are saying is that you're an informed customer and buy wholesale instead of retail. Good.
Re:Prostitute Schedule for Jan. 20 at the MBOT in (Score:2)
But, since we're off topic, lemme point out the Uncertainty Principle applies to prostitution listings on websites -- the very act of noting them collapses the wave function and they cease to exist. this would be eerie and Grant Morrisony, but it's not, because of course the cops can read websites as well as you can.
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes perfect sense to me... (Score:2)
Re:Makes perfect sense to me... (Score:2)
Except the whiners that get caught claim they are unfairly targeted, why me, etc, etc, rather that just stepping up and saying "I gambled; I lost."
Re:Makes perfect sense to me... (Score:2)
Now if a plane does come crashing down and they somehow survive but missing a few limbs, are they whiners for not saying "I gambled, I lost" or are the terrorists at fault for firing airplane-missiles at office buildings?
The way I see it, file sharing is right to do (socially beneficial and without causing any legitimate harm or violating anyones legitimate r
Re:Makes perfect sense to me... (Score:2)
the laws establishing intellectual property have been around for hundreds of years. outside of those laws against committing personal harm and the such, these stand as some of the first laws ever written.
I mean, personally, I don't see any reason why I can't go to a wal mart and take 6 or 7 bars of candy
Spin (Score:5, Interesting)
The number of users of iTunes and iPods music devices has increased, why hasnt the level of file sharing? Seems either lawsuits worked, or people prefer convenience of using the itunes store. I dont think it's healthy for the lawsuit factor should be blindly dismissed as ineffective.
The point I actually want to make is we have to be objective and have to know where the threats are. After all, no point in ignoring something that might be true. Maybe counter FUD is needed, or better file sharing methods?
Re:Spin (Score:2)
Re:Spin (Score:2)
iTunes sales? (Score:2)
Hmmm, maybe because people are using the iTunes service, and downloading their music their. You're making the assumption that everyone will download either to "stick it to the man," or perhaps because to take for free rather than purchase for moderate price is what most would do.
I counter to say that people now have a more legitimate source of music, and they are using it. After all, the article is about filesharing... but music downloa
Re:Spin (Score:2)
I'd say it's sound to stay away from conclusions with a lot of "maybe", "perhaps" and "what if" in them.
Even the mighty RIAA doesn't have magic future vision to back any of this.
Re:Spin (Score:2)
They sure taught me a lesson! (Score:5, Funny)
You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Suing people tends to piss them off, making them less likely to buy from you.
Other conclusions? (Score:5, Informative)
You can also interpret the data another way from this, if you so desire:
35% of illegal file-sharers have cut back*
14% of illegal file sharers have increased activity*
*Jupiter survey of 3,000 people in UK, Germany and Spain
What the people want (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the people want (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the people want (Score:2)
Re:What the people want (Score:2)
one: how do you know if an artists is in it for the money? how they act, perhaps?
two: every wonder about the artists that can't tour except locally? Even worse, lots of artists don't have a concentrated fan group to tour around near. What about those artists that don't have enough fans in one area but have a lot across a wide range of areas.
three: Those artists who aren't very entertaining on a stage and are really only about the music and making a living
Lawsuits don't stop filesharing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lawsuits don't stop filesharing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuits don't stop filesharing (Score:2)
And hard drive space.
I just don't have room for more stuff these days.
Sometimes "misunderstood" (Score:4, Insightful)
[Mr. Kennedy] said DRM was a "sometimes misunderstood element of the digital music business".
I wonder if he knows who is misunderstanding it...
Re:Sometimes "misunderstood" (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes "misunderstood" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sometimes "misunderstood" (Score:2)
Don't forget to crank up the phonograph (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget to crank up the phonograph (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget to crank up the phonograph (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget to crank up the phonograph (Score:5, Funny)
Keep mis-reading the name (Score:2)
the phonograph is the industry. (Score:2)
It's not just an ancient mindset, it's an ancient industry. It's foundation is limitation of publication of physical media. From the broken presses of Gilbert and Sullivan sheet music presses to CD burnings, the industry has existed only through the intervention and support of government. In the US, the establishment clause of the constitution somehow has given us eternal copyright, three broadcasters and three big music publishers with much
Re:the phonograph is the industry. (Score:2)
Re:the phonograph is the industry. (Score:2)
Given that the establishment clause is the clause that prohibits the government from establishing a religion, could you explain precisely how it's given us eternal copyright, etc.? I'm especially interested in how it compares with the copyright and patent clause.
Re:the phonograph is the industry. (Score:2)
Oh, picky, picky. I've heard Article One, section 8, of the United States Constitution described as the "Copyright Establishment Clause" which is very different from the Bill of Rights prohibition of a state religion. Perhaps I heard wrong and t
Re:the phonograph is the industry. (Score:3, Informative)
Eh, it's like people thoroughly mangling computer terms. There's one clause called the establishment clause, and that's in the First Amendment.
Perhaps I heard wrong and that section should be called a patent and copyright clause, though neither of those terms is employed.
And the elastic clause doesn't mention elasticity. So what? They're lawyer's jargon for various clauses in the Constitution, not parts of the actual document. The important thing is that people know what you mean when you u
The cost of litigation (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe THAT is the reason why record companies are seeing their profits decline? Court costs are not trivial.
Litigation now, filing yes (Score:2)
what the ...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Factor in growing internet population? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Factor in growing internet population? (Score:2)
bad interpretation, not much has changed. (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes and it did. That is a brief history of the 90s.
If it has, in fact, stayed flat that would indicate something is creating downward pressure.
What you see is market destruction and saturation. The big publishers wiped out their competition, so their primary market is left with bad choices and continues to make them at the same rate as always.
Don't confuse broadband adoption with internet access a
Just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
Most courts say...... (Score:2)
Re:Just goes to show (Score:2)
Re:Just goes to show (Score:2)
Yes you can. Not wearing seatbelts was legal, a law was passed, now everyone thinks it's illegal. Many, many examples of things that were legal at one time (so everyone would rightly believe they were legal), becoming illegal.
Just how outlawing liquor in the 30's made it more popular than ever.
Very overused example, and there are many the other way. Outlawing seatbelts did not result in less people wearing seatbelts - it results in a grea
Each time you download music illegally.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Each time you download music illegally.... (Score:2)
But...internet use grew during that time frame (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But...internet use grew during that time frame (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I've read on the eMule forums, I'd suspect that the lack of growth in P2P use has more to do with packet shaping than with the threat of being hauled into court. I'd also question wh
Re:But...internet use grew during that time frame (Score:2)
But, you seem to forget that because people are aware of the lawsuits, they don't download the files themselves. There are plenty of small entrepreneurs around who will sell you a dvd or cd of whatever files you want, for much less than the retail cost. I know of one person who receives a stack of cds and dvds once a month by mai
Re:But...internet use grew during that time frame (Score:2)
and of course, there is no reason why my buying an Ipod would have any effect on my downloading of music. Itunes is either good for you or it sucks(personally I hate it, a terrible program that doesn't run well). of course, if I ever get my hands on the 7000 or so son
Simple Market Explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
The price we pay is based on our assessment of the time it took to make the exact item/service we're getting.
Music live I can see paying $15-$50 or more -- supply is low, so demand sets the price.
Digital music has a near infinite supply. The market pushes costs to zero.
Re:Simple Market Explanation (Score:2)
First, the cost is not "near zero." Rather, the MARGINAL cost of production of goods such as digital music is "near zero."
There is a BIG difference between the two....
however, what is more true is that the model of low marginal cost of production applies for virtually ALL industries from CPUs to newspapers to what-have-you and yet we far more rarely see the idiot economic justifications for piracy/theft in those areas that we see for music. i
Re:Simple Market Explanation (Score:3, Informative)
I've owned a studio and I'm opening a new one in spring.
A good recording session (8 songs average) costs the band US$12000. Producing 10,000 CDs 4color is US$8000. $2/CD cost. The physical CD has value.
Now copying the CD to another copy has little cost. You're selling the official CD, so you're asking for more money with the end user understanding that the additional price is going to help the band make more music.
The processor market is cheap, too. I can run SOCs for a few bucks a pop
Re:Simple Market Explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
How about this: 30 minutes of animation can cost between $30k and $300k, or more, depending on the quality you desire.
Multiply that by 13 for one season and you've got a lot if it's a well animated show. Multiply it by two or four (some shows run a full year) and you're chalking up hefty costs.
I guess since recorded media has no value, they'll have to find some way of doing animation live? Apparently since it can be digitized and copied at zero cost, the work must ha
Re:Simple Market Explanation (Score:2)
This is a very accurate viewpoint of the current problems with digital content and the force of copyright. I was in the 3D animation business years ago (when a Pentium-200 with 64MB of RAM was considered huge) and I left it due to lack of profitable clients. If only I had waited 2 years!
Nonetheless, I ag
Did anyone else read... (Score:2)
Now that would be an interesting institution to do research on filesharing!
Why would there be a connection? (Score:3, Interesting)
P2P file-sharing technologies are inreasingly being used for legitimate distribution of many large content objects, simply because it makes more-efficient use of Internet infrastructure: the free-for-download fan series "Star Trek: New Voyages" and World of Warcraft patches are just two examples that come to mind.
I expect there's plenty of Gene Research data and other such things using P2P by now as well.
Getting back to a normal relationship between (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) artists need money to live and be productive
2.) artists need consumers who appreciate their art work, and pay for them
3.) consumers need artists too, because artists are the basic glue which upholds
and inspires our culture, every decade is mostly described by their artists,
and the artwork,
what you think of when I say 80s, perhaps there is a famous tune floating
through your ears, or you see a picture of the androgynous "Boy George",
or see a black pontiac transam cruising, it´s part of our culture,
or even parts of our identity.
<b>artwork belongs to both society and creator </b>
so as I wrote in the subject it´s a two way relationship where no side
can exist without the other, so from my point of view if you are an artist and create artwork, on the one hand you should have the right to sell your artwork,
and you should have the right to prosecute those people who sell
your creations, because this is a really damage in your oportunity to
sell your artwork, but persecuting private fileshares, which could not
pay for all artwork they have on their HDs aren´t really a loss,
because most of them still buy the artwork they appreciate most,
they are consumers who are willing to pay for artwork.
But accepting that you created artwork and release it to the public you also
must accept that since release you don´t own your creation entirely anymore,
it becomes part of the cultural heritage of a group, a society or even the worlds cultural heritage.
So concluding this, and citing what was said in a thread above, the more people you take to court the more bitter people there will be, the more consumers
you will lose.
<b>The copyright has gone mad since the "Mickey Mouse" - act induced by Bono.</b>
In germany we call the copyright "Urheberrecht"
Which means the right of the creator on his creation, but why should
the copyright last longer than the creator lives, because he is dead,
so he and his work were and are part of our culture, he participated
on the wealth of the consumers of his artwork, so why after his death
his artwork shouldn´t be public domain ?
Artwork isn´t pure commercial, because it´s part of our culture.
a.) I´m against commercial copyright violators
b.) I provide an allowance of private and fair use,
perhaps using a culture flat fee, where you pay non directional
so creators of swapped artwork get a compensation
c.) many artists owe their public success to the napsters and eDonkeys
of the world, for example "Gorillaz"
d.) music industry is stuck into a total commercial way of thinking,
they forgot that those private file swappers they sue, are also mostly
consumers, and that private fileswapping can boost record sales
e.) we even have recuded file swapping rates, but the record sales
are still decreasing.
<b> Copy doesn´t kill music,
Copy is a sign of life,
Hearing & Copying is a sign of appreciation,
</b>
and leads to prospering business.
Same (Score:2)
The way file sharing was growing with Napster and Even with Kazaa it's a wonder they didn't go out of business.
Well here's hoping someone compiles ALL free music and formats it well somewhere and they take down the RIAA.
Hey, here's a thought (Score:2, Interesting)
circletimessquare's guide to safe filesharing (Score:4, Interesting)
1. load your shared folder up with porn
2. if you must download linkin park or flipsyde, the kind of stuff the riaa is sniffing?:
a. stop all of your downloads except that song you want with the most sources and the best connections
b. suck it down in under a minute
c. immediately get it out of your shared folder
d. if you do it fast enough, all the porn suckers you have cultivated will flood out and anyone trying to get that drop of water pop song in your sea of masking porn
e. and the riaa only goes after those who make pop songs available, not those who download it, don't forget that
additionally you are a filesharer of good ethical standing: you ARE sharing files people want, you are just segregating what you share/ don't share according legal risk
and speaking of pop songs? i have the BEST solution for beating the riaa on that subject matter: i embrace world music, i let my mind wander. currently, i'm into japanese pop music and european techno: love that armin van buuren and ayumi hamasaki (i live in new york city)
the thing to do is is to expand your musical interests to things beyond the usual pop crap of your native country (and embrace pop crap of other countries, heh), and you are also therefore using the new file sharing technology to its greatest benefit: connecting with resources that otherwise would be beyond your grasp in the pre-internet universe. file sharing is exactly what the digital utopians dreamed about in the heyday of the internet: the free exchange of world culture, bringing people together in large and small ways. file sharing is the promise of the internet. the only people who lose, are media conglomerates. every one else wins, INCLUDING THE ARTISTS. because a real artist does it for the art, not the money
so embrace world music, and you win two ways:
1. you won't be on the riaa's radar
2. you'll grow new brain cells as you develop an awareness of a world beyond your nation's borders, of music beyond your stupid local music industry
there really is a lot of good stuff out there. free your mind and give the bastards who want to keep you in a marketing straightjacket the finger in the process.
and for those of you with a holier-than-thou attitude about me ripping off musicians from other countries? get around this chicken and egg situation: if it weren't for the filesharing networks, I WOULD NEVER BE EXPOSED TO THE ARTIST I AM LISTENING TO IN THE FIRST PLACE. solve that quandry and get back to me with your holier than thou attitude
Logically speaking they are correct (Score:2)
music piracy has always been there (Score:3, Interesting)
Whats the point though, why all this fus, it's just people trying to share enjoyment. It's not like money makes people happy, if the artists are good then they sell tickets, that's where the real money is.
I'd rather move to Spain and try to catch some of the towns people reproduce music their way, that has to be more original.
But on this note, why should the consumer pay to listen to some remake of an old classic for a rediculous price, it's not original work and therefore as much IP theft as someone who boot leggs music.
And no, I do not copy music, kazza doesn't run on Linux, I listen only to shoutcast streams, and freeview channel 18.
Re:Once a thief (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once a thief (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be interesting to see a demographic survey of
Re:Once a thief (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Covenants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Covenants (Score:2)
Which is fine. It's somewhat self-contradictory to say "I don't like how you're getting screwed, so I'm going to solve that by screwing you out of the tiny cut as well". The marketing argument is bullshit. It is like saying that stealing a ca
Re:Covenants (Score:2)
Re:Covenants (Score:2)
of course, the face of music would change comple
Re:The Real Issue (Score:2)
What about offline filesharing? (Score:3, Interesting)
A draconian crackdown in online file sharing will only result the movement of file-sharing to an offline model.
I well recall the m