Legal Issues Don't Bother American Downloaders 766
An anonymous reader writes "Ipsos-Reid has released its latest research on file trading. Bottom line, the great majority of users do not believe they are breaking the law. Only 9% feel there is anything wrong with their actions. With 40 million Americans identified as active file traders this is indeed stirring information, though not surprising. Another stat, 73% of US downloaders report that their motivation for trading was to sample music for later purchase. You can see the charts and original press release here."
Released by a Reputable News Source (Score:5, Funny)
Names.... (Score:5, Funny)
Why do I need to put my name and adress? You said this was an anonymous survey?
Oh, that's just for ehh ... our computer, eh... so he can list you in alphabetical order, and ehh geographical area... yes, that's it! *Scratches back of head nervously, looks away*
Re:Released by a Reputable News Source (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Released by a Reputable News Source (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA. Just to be nitpicky, the number you're looking for is 91%. "US downloaders feel that file trading activities are benign. Only 9% thought that file trading was wrong." However, that's out of US downloaders, which earlier they stated to be "almost one-fifth of the US population over 12."
Needless to say i would expect to see some correlation between people who choose to download music and people w
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
In Other News.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Adaptation.... Evolution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adaptation.... Evolution... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA was borne out of the fact that these companies were able to utilise vinyl record technology to fulfill a service which the general public wanted, to provide popular music to the mass market. Today they've stepped away from that original premise. Mainstream music today is bland because it is easier to sell music that everyone finds inoffensive than sell music which some people think is great (and obviously others will hate).
For the record, I download mp3s from filesharing networks. And what I have found is that it has instroduced me to music I wasn't aware of before and I have purchased CD's off the back of those downloads. Those people who decry filesharing have obviously never used it. mp3 quality is ok for basic PC speakers, but usually sounds poor on a decent stereo. Downloaded mp3s are freqeuently incomplete. So it doesn't replace any other medium, but is an addition. I can't use my local radio station as a sampler for the sort of music I like. filesharing lets me do that.
We need some extinction too... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't argue that filesharing has little or no impact on the decline in CD sales. Instead, I'd say that this is a very good thing. A large part of society is basically saying that the
You're so right about the ugly people... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I never really though about it, but it's so true - hell, The First Lady [media.org] herself probably couldn't land a contract today. Oc course, leaves you wondering how Rosen got where she is...
Re:Adaptation.... Evolution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Net Force derived most of of its power from the Patriot I, and II bills, removing its need for warrents, or even probably cause for its various searches and seizures. Rumor and accusation were enough to incur its wrath.
Ownership of a private personal computer soon became a liability in the United States. By 2014 every personal computer was required to have a unique government identification number and to pay a licence fee to the Federal Government to fund the organizations necessary to monitor it.
In 2015 the maffia entered the picture. Using chips and other components aquired overseas, small illegal hack-houses began building and distributing pirate systems. Specificly designed without the vulribilities Net Force and the DOHS required, these systems provided an expensive but unregulated medium to exchange information.
I suppose I could add more, but lets leave that up to someone else. Sure, it's largly based on that love song for napster peice... but is it really so much of a stretch?
Christian moral law caused it? *BZZTT*, Try again! (Score:4, Insightful)
As near as I can figure, the argument is something like this:
Women's Sufferage movement: WE NEED TO VOTE!
Everyone else: Why? Aren't things going okay for you?
Women's Sufferage movement: WE ARE MORALLY OPPOSED TO ALCOHOL!
Everyone else: I guess you've got your convictions (and a few mumbles of approval that win support to the sufferage movement)
When it came down to it, the reason was mostly just an excuse to allow women to take the power they should have already had.
The prohibition movement was a small push that turned the tide.
I'd like to think that all of the women in America hold a lot more political power than media conglomerates, and unlike perhaps Christian moral law, women have *not* been completely replaced by money and corporate interests. But enough about that...
The primary goal of politicians is to stay in office - which means convincing the majority of the public that they are helped, or at least not hindered by this politician, since politicians are elected. If they don't, they won't get reelected.
The secondary goal of a politician is to make lots and lots of money - which is often in opposition to the first goal, since doing that may require that a politician attempt to legalize corporate crimes against his constituents.
As I see it the fine line they walk is to pass all the laws they can which legalize crimes against the constituents, while enforcing as few of these laws as possible, so that said constituents will not find out, get mad, and boot them from office. Then the new guy will have to repeal the "crime is legal" law before he starts writing his own.
Seems to me Congress is doing exactly that and will continue to do so as long as possible until they really anger the voters. Then they'll change whatever law made us the angriest, wait a few years, and write it again.
I have a theory that this perturbation process actually results in corrections becoming more major as time goes by (because the problem gets worse at a more fundamental level). If I'm right, one day income tax will be repealed.
Note to anyone arguing against this theory (a little note to help the argument-impaired here on
Re:Prohibition ? (Score:3, Insightful)
haw haw (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Still a good analogy: (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA has been yelping and screaming ( "OW! My profit!!!" ) ever since they (well, their affiliates) brought us fabulous new talent like 98 Degrees and Sum41.
"Gee, Bob, I can't understand why people aren't buying the CDs, these bands are practically clones of the last big hits we signed... Ahh, must be those God-damned pirates again! Betty! Can you get my lobbying group on the line, please? We got some ass to kick!"
Re:haw haw (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps a better analogy would be like flailing your arms around randomly in the dark.
Almost all of the time you hit air and it's a victimless crime. Sometimes you end up hitting criminals, helping the people trying to stop you. Other times you hit regular people, and cause real damage.
Most of the time you'd never have bought that MP3 you just downloaded. Some of the time you'll go buy an album after getting that MP3. Other times you'll download instead of buying, and they'll lose the sale.
The morality of downloading music is not clear cut.
no (Score:5, Insightful)
I beg to differ. Its pretty apparent to anyone you talk to that they know they are breaking the law, they just don't care.
My take (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My take (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you tell yourself that, if it makes you feel better. I'm sure there are some here on Slashdot that download a few gigs of music every month, then go out and buy CDs for music they already have. Ya know, 'cos they're moral sort of people.
The vast majority of p2p pirates do not do this. I'm talking from personal experience. They don't download music to "sample" it, they download whole albums, sometimes even with artwork. Even worse, some of them have the gall to then burn them onto CDs and sell it on to people without broadband connections, sometimes for as much as 500% profit.
They never buy CDs. Why bother, when downloading it is so much easier? The fact is, if there was no music piracy, CD sales would be higher, because all those people who never buy CDs (or who buy them for nearly nothing from "friends") would have lower music consumption but would actually pay for it, so the gross profit is still higher than zero.
This "victimless crime" garbage has got to end. Music piracy is a victimless crime in the same way a war on Iraq would be a victimless crime - there are victims all right, you just can't see them, except in occasional glances the media gives as events rush past the window.
Re:My take (Score:4, Interesting)
Fine then, I'll tell myself that. Meanwhile, I'll be ordering another round of CDs from CD Japan [cdjapan.co.jp] pretty soon, for instance the SaiKano OST and the GitS:SAC OST which I "borrowed" from a friend since I wasn't a big fan of the show, only the music (amongst other CDs that I have mp3s from.
Why bother, when downloading it is so much easier
I only have one reply to this: snort. I'm really sure its "so much easier" to deal with the drek, people who never let you fetch stuff, and other crap on kazaa and the like. And thats if anyone else out there actually had my interests in music.
Now, I'm completely against the people who do as you describe and resell the burnt CDs for 500% profit (at this point, I would call it "bootlegging"). But you have to face it: Today's US music industry relies on people not hearing the crap on the disc ahead of time, so that they might be fooled into buying it. Since they have managed to get their industry into such a run-down state that the only way they can manage to sell anything is by accident or deceit (wouldn't you call filling a CD with two good songs which get radio advertising time, and the remainder with remixes or other crap deceit?) they have to force people to not preview the music. So they push for laws against it.
You know what really makes me feel better? It's not telling myself that I'm going to buy the stuff I like, because I know that to be true. It's that I look out and see civil disobedience performed against the gross misuse of a once-honorable law (copyright law, to be specific). Once upon a time it let people be creative and get money for their creations. Now, the music industry (amongst others) has shifted the power of the law from protecting authors to protecting the publishers. Once upon a time, an author granted permission to a publisher to publish the work. Nowadays, the publishers use work-for-hire loopholes and other tricks to take the work by force and leave the author with nothing but debt. For instance, if you read the text of the DMCA, you'll notice that there are no rights assigned to authors of a work. If I record a song in a DRM-enabled format, I have no right to remove the DRM from it, because the DMCA protects the DRM, not my work. (And before you claim "bullshit", take a look at this [cmu.edu] where legal threats were made against a person who wrote his own tool for fixing the "don't embed" bit for fonts he created himself. It hasn't gone to court, apparently, but given that the DMCA repeals rights of due process, that doesn't matter much, does it?)
So do the American thing. Protest the commercialization of your government and download an mp3 today.
Re:My take (Score:4, Insightful)
First, I am not advocating piracy at all, and to date, I have never downloaded a single mp3 from the internet that wasn't already on the artist's website. However, ever single cd I have purchased, I rip to ogg format, because I don't have a stereo (it was stolen), so my ONLY way to listen to music is on my computers.
Second, I was correcting the myth that the music was never purchased. It was, and had to be (in most cases) by at least one person, who ripped the disk and illegally put it onto the net or p2p space.
Third, your math is grossly incorrect. If putting out 1M copies of a cd costs 'x', putting out 4M copies of a cd does not cost 'x*4'. The initial startup and production (studio) costs may be more initially, but once you have a digitally reproducable medium, you can replicate that BILLIONS of times at only the cost of negligible commodity hardware. You don't incur studio (human, carbon) costs for each new run. You do, however incur non-human (silicon, paper, cd media) costs.
It currently costs roughly $4-5/USD to put a cd into the hands of consumers in the record stores, which does take into account shipping, packaging, printing, and so on. The remaining $10-15/USD that you pay is.. PROFIT. Please do some research first. CDs do not cost $15.00/USD each to produce and master. If you believe that, you've been brainwashed by the record companies and RIAA for far too long.
Also, artists are starving because the record companies don't own up to their end of the bargain, and refuse to pay them, withold payments and loans, etc. Bands have no recourse but to claim bankruptcy in many cases, and now the RIAA and record companies are trying to make that against the law as well. When a singer like Jennifer Lopez clears $40k in salary in 2000, you really start thinking about where the $200 BILLION dollars that the record companies collected that year goes.
You just reinforced my point. These were obviously leaked from the studio itself, so how are "piraters" and p2p/filesharing services to blame? The motivation to put it out on the net existed already, the existance of p2p didn't "suck it out of the studio windows". Someone wanted to leak it, and they did. If it wasn't p2p, it would be ftp, or http, or some other means.
This also just recently happened with the Oscar pre-release DVD versions of many movies not-yet-released.
People need to get a grip on reality here. The RIAA is pissed because they missed the boat on the internet as a legitimate music distribution medium.
So why didn't the RIAA/record companies just decide to make an "online store", where you pay $5.00 for an ISO + artwork, download them, print them and make your own version? If it was $5.00, their sales would SKYROCKET. But for $15.00 in a store, where most of the music on the disk is garbage, of COURSE people will pirate it.
I'm all for allowing everyone their piece of the pie, but the RIAA and the record companies are quadruple-dipping, and at the same time, trying to make it illegal or impossible to use t
Re:no (Score:2, Insightful)
"illegal" != "wrong" (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between what is illegal and what people believe is wrong. Before the civil war, it was illegal to help a run-away slave, even if you were in the North. Many people worked on the "Underground railroad" anyway and didn't think it was "wrong" to help slaves.
Now a days, the whole concept that you could "own" a person seems pretty strange. But then, some people today also think that the whole concept that you could "own" an idea is pretty strange.
Re:"illegal" != "wrong" (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the Home Recording Act, I can record any signal I can pick up in my home from the radio or TV AND let any of my friends or family borrow or record from my recording.
So, it's not illegal for me to get a radio tuner for my PC and encode songs to MP3 -- yet, it is illegal to download those exact same songs in mp3 format or to post them to the web, but it is legal for me to give my radio-encoded mp3's to any of my friends. Also, the same is true for any TV shows. I can record The Sopranos, burn it to a DVD, and give it to a friend, yet I can't download the episode of the Sopranos I missed last week even though I pay for HBO!!
Anyone else think this is stupid? I can listen to any music on MP3 whenever I want -- so long as the original source was from either a CD I baught, the radio, or a friend or family member who gave it to me as long as they got it from the radio or TV -- but NOT from a stranger online... mmmkayyy. But, if I met a stranger online in person, and we were friends... they could give me a copy & that'd be legal.. so long as their source was from a the radio or TV.
I fear that laws will change to where noone can copy anything (goodbye fair use), but I'd prefer that they'd change so that noone can enforce a copyright longer than 7 years. (after 2 years, most music and movies have made their serious dough anyway -- 'cept TV shows b/c they get their major money in sindication (sp). I think a fair compromise would be -- you can't copy anything for other than personal use, parody, news media, or some other variant of free speech/fair use ... unless it's 7 years old :-) (in other words, no sharing of an exact copy of a full work with anyone unless it's 7 years old)
Re:"illegal" != "wrong" (Score:5, Interesting)
Why copyright is unjust (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair payment for effort taken, and quality of that effort is all well and good, and I do want the authors of the books I read and the music I like to
Re:"illegal" != "wrong" (Score:5, Insightful)
The unjust part of copyright law is the fact that it is no longer a balancing of the rights of the consumers and the rights of the creators. There is no such thing as a "natural copyright". In fact, given the obvious ease with with ideas spread, it would seem that nature is quite opposed to such a thing. Copyright was created to make sure that creators were compensated for their work, and that the work could be made widely accessible to the people of this country. Ideas that were good and that people liked would end up staying around and being changed and built upon. Now, over the years the scales have tipped WAY in favor of the copyright owners (who are rarely the creators anymore), giving them more and more control over much longer periods of time. What have we gotten in return? Absolutely nothing. That is what I feel is unjust.
Copyright is not intended to compensate authors... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
I would recommend the RIAA to work hard at making music, not the physical cd, but the actual song, what is being purchased. Once people realize that the song is what they own then they will respect it even when they see it is for "free".
The other problem is that there is no crackdown on downloaders. If you started arresting people, it would actually sink in to 90% of the users that they are breaking the law. If you could walk in to a store, grab that cool shirt you've been wanting, and walked out without being stopped, you'd probably get into the habit of it. But not only because of our conscience, the detectors at the door and the security cameras help deter us from stealing.
Obviously there would still be people d/ling mp3s, but it would be much less than the 20 million or so that do it now.
Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with the law, but I'm explaining that people don't realize they're breaking the law, why they do, and how they could be stopped.
They don't want the content to be purchased (Score:4, Insightful)
If you walk in to a store and take a CD or a shirt or whatever, that means someone else can't buy it. If you download a song, other people can still download it too. If you could clone physical objects (something like the replicators on Star Trek), then would it be a crime to clone yourself a copy of that t-shirt?
Re:no (Score:3, Insightful)
> to write programs cannot comprehend that a
> program should cost money. These same people
> would never steal a cd from a store, yet they
> don't understand that the music they download
> is the same. I would recommend the RIAA to
> work hard at making music, not the physical
> cd, but the actual song, what is being
> purchased.
It's a good point, but I don't think that the RIAA could really help. I think that more of the problem is that
Viable solutions causing me guilt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Um why's it so apparent?
- Music on the radio is free. Absolutely no fees attached. CD purchases are for the convience of hearing the songs whenever you want. Why not? Analog radio cannot possibly be an on-demand service.
- Where's the warning on CD's about what you can/cannot do with them? Movies have that warning.
- How many people are downloading music because they just want to explore what's out there? I'm sorry, but the 'buy to try, sorry no refunds' business model is not acceptable.
- How many people are downloading Mp3 versions of songs they already have or have lost over time? CDs are scratchable...
- What exactly is illegal about downloading the Mp3? The answer is not as black and white as some whould like to oversimplify it. The RIAA thinks that having the Mp3 at all is illegal. The average user says "uh no, not if I already have the CD." Unfortunately, the law's not so clear on that. That's one of the reasons the DMCA is so offensive.
So yes, I do agree with you that people don't care. However, I don't believe they're being overly ignorant, nor do I believe it's their fault. The RIAA is guilty of not educating people properly. They're also guilty of flaming their customers instead of working with them.
Re:no (Score:4, Informative)
Music on the radio is free in the same way that over-the-air television is free. It's advertiser-supported. This is a well-understood concept.
Where's the warning on CD's about what you can/cannot do with them?
Where's the warning on books? And yet people understand the rules surrounding their use.
I'm sorry, but the 'buy to try, sorry no refunds' business model is not acceptable.
What do you think the radio is for? And before you even try, arguing that the music industry is flawed isn't going to get you anywhere. The fact that a system is flawed doesn't give you the moral right to ignore the laws related to that system.
How many people are downloading Mp3 versions of songs they already have or have lost over time?
If I were to lose a book, would I be justified in demanding that the publisher of that book send me another copy? Of course not. Nor would I be justified in breaking the law to download a digital copy of that book off the Internet.
What exactly is illegal about downloading the Mp3? That part.
In other words, if you make a copy of a copyrighted song without express permission from the copyright owner, you have broken the law and can be subject to civil action. If the total dollar value of the songs you have illegally copied during a 180-day period is greater than $1,000, then you can be brought up on criminal charges as well.
Downloading a song from another computer is, incidentally, making a copy. So it's illegal, and on a sufficient scale, criminal.
The RIAA thinks that having the Mp3 at all is illegal. The average user says "uh no, not if I already have the CD." Unfortunately, the law's not so clear on that.
The law is, in fact, totally clear on that. If you buy a CD, then you can make copies of that CD for your own personal use. You cannot, however, make copies of somebody else's CD, even if that other CD is identical to your own. For example, if I were to buy a CD and then scratch it to make it unusable, and then to download the contents of the CD from the Internet, I would be breaking the law.
Making MP3's or whatever from CD's you own: fine. Downloading MP3's or whatever that happen to correspond to songs on CD's you own: not fine.
The RIAA is guilty of not educating people properly.
It's not the RIAA's responsibility to educate people. The only party responsible for educating you on matters of law is you.
Re:no (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. Making a copy without authorization from the copyright owner or a statutory exception is unlawful. It's not ambiguous, and it's not questionable.
Man, you aren't really up on the law in this area, are you? The courts have already found that some forms of copying are just fine. It's called time-shifting or space-shifting. That's why VCRs are legal. That's why backup copies are legal. That's why making a copy of a cd to keep in my car is legal. It's hardly as black and white as you make
GenX (Score:3, Interesting)
Welcome to the 21st century!!
no fear here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet file sharing model isn't 'listen and buy,' it's just 'listen.'
The question we should be asking ourselves is why exactly is this any different from the library?
Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
libraries (Score:3, Interesting)
I was on the Academic Technology Committee at the university where I work, at one of the meetings we discussed library e-books and I didn't get the point. They were buying books that were available electronically, but the software was crippled so they could only be "checked out" by one
Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple ways, if you think about it. First, materials are donated to a library, at which point the donor no longer has access to the donated material. Second, you inevitably have to return any item you check out to the library, after which point you no longer have access to the material.
Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Most materials in libraries are not "donated." They're purchased with money taken from taxpayers-- all of us. They still belong to us, even if they're under the temporary control of the librarians.
2)You may have to return the items you borrow from the library, but you can always get them again. You may not have "immediate access" to these materials, but you do have permanent access, any time you feel like going to the library.
Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:2)
The question we should be asking ourselves is why do we deny that we just enjoy stealing our music?
Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:2)
But the difference between a library (large cost to copy phyiscal media) and electronic information (nearly free to copy) is pretty obvious to me.
Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:3, Insightful)
Isnt that what sampling is all about ? To make sure that you purchase what you think is really worth a purchase. You are not forced to purchase everything that you check out in the stores, are you? I fail to understand why this is so NASTY when people have been doing it all the time by recording songs off their FM.
The radio analogy works better than a library because tapes are closer to a digital medium th
it's not just availability ... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I'm actually convinced that a lot of people who would like to pay the artists (out of enlightened self-interest if not deep morals) *don't* ever buy the album not because they like being evil and naughty, but because *the physical medium* is actually more annoying than valuable, and downloads-for-money are still a novelty on both s
Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is right on. (Score:5, Funny)
Why does this surprise anybody? (Score:2)
Take towels in hotels, cutlery or even glasses in bars. People take them knowing full well its illegal.
Re:Why does this surprise anybody? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It is not the "human condition" to steal. I do not steal towels or cutlery or glasses because that is physical property that someone had to manufacture and someone else had to buy. It would be immoral and unethical for me to steal those things.
Songs are not physical property, as much as the RIAA would like you to think they are. Songs are creative entities that are sometimes captured on physical media. Given the chance, most people would welcome the opportunity to reward the authors of these entities. But because the publishers have taken an aggressive position to get in the way, people have routed around them.
I respect and reward people and companies that offer me their product and ask for my monetary support. I shun and despise those who treat me as a criminal first, customer second, and demand my monetary support.
--K.
Rule #1 - Consider the source: (Score:5, Insightful)
An article that's carried by a site called "MP3Newswire.net" is probably going to be a bit biased toward anything which promotes the use of MP3 devices; and let's face it, music-sharing promotes the use of MP3 devices, albeit indirectly.
Did this same organization conduct the poll in the first place? It's very easy to make a poll's questions biased enough that the people filling out the surveys will, for the most part, give you the answers you want to hear.
One of the first jobs I held - in fact, the first job I held after I moved to Atlanta back in '95 - was a marketing research job. The surveys even then were weighted to, if nothing else, increase customer awareness of the product we were hired to conduct surveys upon. For instance, when doing surveys for BellSouth, we couldn't say "yellow pages." We had to say, "The REAL Yellow Pages." **Stifles a gag**
Rule #2 - Consider the audience:
if the survey was only available via MP3Newswire.net, the people who take the poll will more likely be people who already trade music files online. If you call people who are actually in the music businesses, such as artists or suits, you're likely to get different poll results.
In short, don't trust a survey until you know who conducted it and interpreted it, and who actually took the survey in the first place.
Re:Rule #1 - Consider the source: (Score:3, Insightful)
Be that as it may, Ipsos-Reid is as far as I know considered to be a very reputable polling agency.
If, you had in fact read the article, you would have noticed the Methodology section on the IR site...
Data on music downloading behaviors was gathered from TEMPO: Keeping Pace with Digital Music Behavior,, a quarterly shared-cost research study by Ipsos examining the ongoing influence and effects of digital music around the world.
Data for this release were collected between December 12 and 16th, 2002, via
I Don't Believe It (Score:5, Funny)
Some Americans claim it isn't theft, but merely copyright infringement. This ignores the fact that everytime you download an MP3 or DivX rip of a popular movie, you're killing an infant.
Ever since personal slander against Saint Hillary Rosen and her subsequent resignation as Chief Excellence Provider, other great leaders such as Jack Valenti are feeling the pressure to step down as well. This will begin the slippery slope to the Third Reich, complete with Nazi death camps and firebombing of Dresden.
I implore you, my fellow consumer, to stand up to the American People, destroy the Constitution that calls for limited copyright terms, and join me in my fight to help Disney have everything it wants.
Thank you. Thank you.
Re:I Don't Believe It (Score:2)
Good start, but it's too direct. Try being more subtle. . . shout something like, "Is that Osama bin Laden?!"
Then, while people are running to their politicians to shred the Constitution for them, you sneak in your amendment to grant indefinite copyright extensions for companies that have 500 or more employees, and it's all good. :-)
Something to think about (Score:3, Interesting)
Time-Shifting (Score:3, Funny)
So what? (Score:2)
This, and many other fine stories... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at the facts:
-The music industry is actively hostile toward their customers, referring to them as thieves.
-Meanwhile, the music industry was found guilty of price fixing CDs for a DECADE. What must they give their customers as restitution? ALMOST enough money to buy ONE new CD!
Clearly, the only solution is mob justice-- in this case, the mass downloading of music by people who are presumed guilty by the RIAA anyway. Nobody loses sleep over this except the RIAA executives who stuff their mattresses with the cash we've paid for CDs where all but 2 of the tracks are pure shit.
Re:This, and many other fine stories... (Score:5, Insightful)
The two party system also doesn't help. Party platforms are the bane of modern politics. I'm personally pro-choice yet against a lot of gun control. Who the fuck do I vote for? I have to choose which of these issues (which really are both the same issue; the government's ability to legislate my private life) is more important to me, there's no viable third party that encompasses both of these. Yes, I realize that these views are supported by the Libertarians. They are not a viable third party because they will never win an important election. Not with the winner-take-all system in US politics. And that's not something you can change by calling your representative.
Survey says (Score:5, Insightful)
News at eleven.
So I was right all along? (Score:3, Insightful)
We've all been doing this for quite some time now; Music trading (regardless of whether or not its illegal) doesn't feel like a crime. People _do_ actually use this stuff for the purposes they claim too. I often download mp3 samples of bands and djs before I'm willing to invest in their cds. The RIAA dumps all over this. Record companies should be taking advantage of this instead of trying to put an end to it.
Of course, this is just the same ol' story. The numbers don't lie though: if THAT many people are using music sharing, and in their opinion, legitimately, you're better off tapping it for your own gain, than to try and drive it into the ground, especially because it just isn't gonna happen.
And they proably smoke pot too. (Score:3, Funny)
I'm mean if it's illegal, it's got to be bad.
Sampling doesn't mean buying (Score:2)
Of course, sampling songs for later purchase doesn't necessarily mean you're going to purchase anything. The whole point of sampling is to decide if you want to purchase the album or not. I've learned from prior experience never to buy an album based on any one song, so if I've only heard one song from a band on the radio, there's no way I'll buy the album without hearing more of thei
Newsflash: More research (Score:5, Funny)
In other news:
ok, i'm not sure what i'm getting at (especially with that last one...), but it's something along the lines of "law doesn't equal ethics." you can buy a law, but Leges sine moribus vanae ("Laws without morals are useless.")
Semantics (Score:5, Interesting)
Note thechoice of words. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who download mp3's are well aware that what they are doing is illegal, but may not believe in their heart of hearts that it is actually wrong - there's a semantic difference implied at the very least.
Most know it is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
9 Percent of People Believe Anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Moral? I'll do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
(a) if it seems moral and ethical (for example, I'm not taking anything that somebody currently owns away from them, and
(b) the laws are complicated, unclear, currently in dispute, and seem to stake out large chunks of "what's fair" as "You Have To Pay For This From Now On" territory, then
(c) people are going to do it, regardless of any attempts by people with lots of cash and hubris to have the laws they want passed by those whose jobs are to write and interpret the law.
Folks are accustomed to being able to listen to copyrighted programs on TV or radio without paying extra. They don't expect to take things from grocery stores without paying. That distinction seems to drive a lot of behavioral choices.
We pay for Linux distros, knowing that we can DL them for free. Why? We're willing to pay people to save us time and effort, and we have the feeling that the prices they ask are reasonable for the time and effort they expend (actually, it feels like we're getting a great deal on the results of their efforts, and Thanks!). We're not willing to pay other people to cost us time and effort with their attempts to own our choices and limit our behavior with predatory laws. That's not what laws are for.
Anecdotal evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason why I bought their album is because of Kazaa.
This year have purchased about 3 cds. My pre file-trading average was about 5-6 a year. I know I will get at least one more when Big Bad Voodoo Daddy releases their next one in April.
So my quantitative purchasing habits have not really changed, but my satisfaction with purchases have increased tremendously. My choices of what I buy also have changed a little.
In summary, what the hell is the RIAA worried about? I feel most people are like me, they pay for what they like, and try to do the honest thing.
--Joey
Re:Anecdotal evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
You're implying that for some reason, performers are trying to hide the "bad" portions of their songs so listeners will somehow be suckered into buying their music.
Duh.... (Score:5, Funny)
Information wants to be free...
Freedom and Liberty .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like - invent p2p networks and then trade files with it.
Look at the poll question! (Score:3, Interesting)
I did not download any illegal material in the last, month but my reply to this question is "Yes!". I did download music which was played at the background of movie trailers or flash sites. Yes, I did download MP3 files when I downloaded the ISOs of RH8.0, which include some sample MP3 files.
Not all music or MP3 downloading is illegal! Not all music is even copyrighted.
MP3s: the corporate punisher (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying a lot of individually petty reasons can add up to a very big grudge. And we have lots of little reasons. Plus the shadow of a controversial war and vague threats of terrorism. So most people like getting their entertainment without leaving the shelter of their home.
So in total, people feel exposed and abused, and may feel the need to "strike back." How easy it becomes, then, to download some silly little file with music in it. Bunch of greedy suits, and the artists hardly see a dime of it anyway, so what's a dozen little music files?
Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum, The Collector. He (or she) downloads for the sake of downloading. "Hey, the entire Jimi Hendrix back catalog. That might come in handy one rainy evening when I have nothing to do." These people get it because they can, don't really listen to the music, and use what they listen to as nothing more than a digital radio--just listening to the latest pop hits, doing so on their terms and deleting the file when they get bored of it.
So it looks like I'm painting a picture that doesn't leave much room for the ordinary, shameful theif. Truth is, there's enough gray area to fill an ocean. Gray area with regards to the theif's ethics, and with regards to the concrete results of their actions.
The bottom line, for me: Is someone reducing your profit when they weren't going to buy it anyway? Yes, when profit is reduced exactly because the item is so easy to steal.
Breaking the law != doing something wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Misinterpretted Data (Score:4, Informative)
I'm going to try something a little dangerous... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate the RIAA as much as any Slashdotter, but you have to look at where they're coming from. Sure, file sharing technology can be a wonderful tool for previously unheard-of artists to get attention, and it's an equally useful way to determine what new music DOESN'T suck. It's very useful in guiding your future music purchases...
Which is where the problem comes in. For every legitimate use of file sharing, there are easily 10 people who abuse it. How many people do you know have simply stopped paying for music because they can get it for free? Be honest. The RIAA only sees the negative side of file sharing, and to be quite honest, it can be pretty damn negative.
We need some sort of middle ground. File sharing can't go on unchecked, because that WILL hinder the RIAA's ability to profit. In the end, the RIAA is still a business and has a right to make money. However, if somehow they manage to crush major file sharing technologies, they'll alienate most of their cosumers. In addition, the artist who actually made the song should get at least some say in this matter; Metallica sued Napster over that very issue.
That's the key: a middle ground. I don't know what that middle ground is, but we definitely need it.
Re:I'm going to try something a little dangerous.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No business has a right to make money. It's like the pursuit of happiness -- you don't have a right to happiness, you have the right to seek it out.
In the same vein, businesses have the right to attempt to make a buck; they don't have a right to be profitable. If the RIAA/MPAA/TLAA can't embrace the new technology then that's their problem, and they should die like the buggy whip manufacturers.
Or as Heinlein much more aptly put it,
(I had to google for this. Here [nedbatchelder.com] it is (scroll down to "What Inspired Heinlein?"))
no blood, no foul (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that is they key statement. In the U.S., most of the time the things we think are wrong are the things that harm the innocent. We have no problem breaking all sorts of laws when we drive, because we do not think it is likely we will do harm to innocent victims. Industry and government knows this which is why they try to show, for example, the damage that drunk driving causes, or link illegal drugs to terrorism. Of course, some of these links are more valid than others, and such ads do backfire when the assertions are bogus.
Which is of course what is going on with the music industry. The industry wants us to believe we are stealing from artist, even though the artists I talk to say most of the money is made off t-shirts and sometimes concerts. They want us to believe we are harming the local retailer, even though the local retailer is harmed more by Wal-Mart and online sales than by copying. They have thus far resisted the urge to tell us that the high level executes are going to forced to sell their Escalades and give up their trophy spouses if we continue to trade music. They might have a better chance by citing the number of people the industry employs, but in a time when unemployment continues to rise with no end in sight, and no leadership to control it, I do not see that even that will get much sympathy.
73% previewing music for purchase... (Score:3, Interesting)
The item about people downloading music to obtain previews/samples of music they might later purchase has got to have the RIAA companies thinking that maybe all that money they've been spending on payol^H^H^H^H^Hpromotion might be wasted. And it can't help the owners of the cookie-cutter style radios stations feel very good about the number of people who are finding an alternate means of discovering new music.
Something Spontaneous about MP3s (Score:5, Interesting)
I find myself doing a similar thing in my car. I always listen to radio in my car, not because I love the music the radio plays, but because it's random. I don't know what's going to happen next (even though it'll prolly suck).
I dislike CDs cause they're a fixed format. Every time I listen to one, it's the same thing. I don't think I'm alone in liking the randomness of formats like radio and MP3s. It would be nice if record companies could offer me something legal to listen to my genres without having to worry about downloading stuff or hearing a song more than a few times. (Maybe I should try XM Radio.)
New Music, Bad CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
What of Live Concerts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who's complaining? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, I hear the big music conglomerates shaking their heads saying "hey, you're cutting through our business model" and "hey, that's not fair." And, of course, when they first said "hey, you're hurting us" a few years back, their sales went up (for a time).
The obvious change is happening: consumers don't want to buy albums anymore - we want to buy songs. Individually. And once we have the song, we want to be able to shift it between mediums as we see fit. For a long time, music companies have gotten away with albums because it was the most conveniant way of selling a bunch of songs from a band. But the technology exists now to purchase songs on an individual level - and this scares them.
It scares the agencies because they can't try and re-sell the same songs on compilation CDs. It scares some artists because filler material won't cut it anymore. It scares anyone attached to the tired old business model of dictating to customers how music is to be enjoyed.
It really scares producers because where once a flavour-of-the-month artist could sell an entire album or two, the new methods would only allow them to sell that individual song. Heaven forbid that consumers have a right to pay for only what they want.
But what scares them most of all is that, in the "new economy", artists may no longer need big distribution companies to reach an audience. No, a band can strike up their own website and share their content globally without having to even pay for the servers - their listeners will do that for them. File sharing means that distribution companies no longer have a monopoly on distribution. And they are scared because their confortable monopoly is in danger. Real danger. And it's being decided, not in the court of litigation, but in the court of public opinion.
And they're loosing. And they're scared.
Yet they do bother citizens of other countries??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I was in Hong Kong you could buy VCDs every other block on the Kowloon peninsula. Don't even get me started on Eastern Europe.
Open Source Music? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay... maybe not...
_______________________________________________
"A planet where walruses evolve from men?" - Get your flippers off me, you damn, dirty pinniped! [punkwalrus.com]
Illegal but wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think of it this way. If you had a magical machine that could instantly make a copy of any product, and you went to a car dealership and made a copy of a dodge viper, and this was something you could never afford anyways, would it be wrong? Dodge is not loosing a product they need to pay to get replaced, because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of you getting something for free that you would have normally payed for without your copying machine, because you could never afford it anyways, and would not otherwise have it. Is that really morally wrong? Now it becomes morally wrong, imho, when you go and copy the car you can afford, but just don't want to pay for.
Now companies will bitch and moan, this is expected. I could very well be wrong, however I think by law they need to fight a legal battle to protect their IP, otherwise it could be argued later in court that they give up the rights to it by knowingly allowing people to "steal" it, without trying to do anything about it. And of course it is legally wrong, but taking into account my analogy above, do you honestly think it is morally wrong?
Re:In time, and in theory, (Score:2, Insightful)
It's too late (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In time, and in theory, (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are any of them getting so rich? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is the IT job market in the dumps right now? Too many unqualified gold-diggers clogging the field.
Why is music in the dumps right now? Too many unqualified gold-diggers clogging the field.
Music was a hell of a lot better, imho, before the advent of the superstar. Not very rewarding, either -- I g
Re:In time, and in theory, (Score:5, Insightful)
People in general don't usualy work to change things that they don't like. All too often people just roll ofer and do whatever is currently being done. People don't like making a stur. It is just not something that the average person does.
I do wish it did happen that way though.
Re:Hello? Anybody home? Think, McFly! Think! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the thing:
During the '80's, Saddam/Iraq obtained germ cultures from a firm in Virginia, with the blessings of the Reagan/Bush White House. That's what was removed from the Iraqi declarations lat year before the U.S. in turn handed them over to the U.N. We gave the "bully" his toys.
Wolfowitz et al had no problem with Saddam gassing Iraqis and Kurds in the 80's. There is a famous picture floating around of Wolfy shaking hands with Saddam a couple of months after he knew damned well Saddam had committed mass murder.
In '88, the U.N. attempted to pass a resolution demanding the investigation of Saddam's gas attacks against helpless civilians. The resolution was blocked by -- wait for it.... --- the veto of the U.S. in the Security Council.
Ironic, eh?
Reagan/Bush equipped and gave aid and comfort to Saddam because he was fighting the Iranians. This is fact. The same people are in Bush's White House. Fact. Another fact: they don't want anyone to remember that past. Their hands are covered with the same blood they denounce on Saddam.
We have delusions about our past: the rest of the world does not. The WH press corps has reliquished its responsiblity to question the President in any meaningful way. We do not receive accurate news coverage of our appointed President's actions: the rest of the world does.
When Saddam WAS acting the bully, he was our guy, and we didn't care. When he attacked our oil supply, he became the enemy. But he was always pathetic and helpless against any real enemy. He can't touch us, and has never shown any inclination to commit suicide by doing so.
We have become the world's only superpower. But instead of being a force for sanity and law, we've gone rogue.
We are oppressing and silencing dissent, at all levels, from our inability to wear T-shirts which oppose Bush to Bush himself holding "press conference" at which only selected reporters could ask pre-approved questions, with Carl Rove front and center maintaining a checklist, controlling the event. This is beyong bullying -- this is totalitarianism pretending to be what it used to be -- a democracy.
We have insulted and manipulated our allies into being the fall guys for our failure to make a sane argument for invading a helpless and non-threatening enemy.
We have news coverage tut-tutting "anti-American" protestors in the U.S. and around the world. An incredible, egregious lie: the protestors are anti-Bush, not anti-American. This is memetic bullying. We have bullied away all the incredible solidarity we had after 9-11. All the good will.
We have told the world we will blow up anything and anyone we want to, at any time. We have informed the world we will use nukes if we want to.
We have told the world that we will torture if we want to. That the Geneva convention no longer applies to our prisoners.
We have told the world that they can go to commie hell if they want us to sign environmental treaties.
We have told the world we no longer need the U.N.
We have told the world that we don't need the Brits to invade Iraq. Britons are understandably pissed off that even they who have supported us are crap in the eyes of the radical right.
We have told the world that we don't care what happens to international diplomacy.
We are the U.S., and people who oppose us (Bush/God) are commies, lesbos, godless, old Europeans, environmentalist pro-press whack jobs.
If Turkey won't take a bribe, then we will cut off their aid. I doubt Bush knows we hardly give any foreign aid compared to the rest of the world, and that Turkey won't miss us much. But it is the act of a bully.
We (Bush) have made it known we will punish economically anyone who opposes us. He is seemingly oblivious to the fact that our economy, via the money he borrows from abroad to pay for our tax cuts and mil
Re:9 percent (Score:3, Insightful)
The article mentions the "education" efforts the RIAA, MPAA, etc., have been putting out, trying to convince people that filesharing is immoral, unethical, whatever. If large segments of the population don't think this is the case, the *AAs are going to have a devil of a time convincing them.
There's nothing morally wrong with heroin use -- if someone wants to fuck themself up, t
Re:How do people justify it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you been using the Internet very long? Other than your monthly ISP fee, 99.9% of the data you get off the Internet, you don't have to pay for. So yes, to most people, downloading free songs is normal and expected.
Re:"Online Privacy" (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds good except for the part where giving up your privacy does little or nothing to aid in preventing the kind of terror of which you're thinking and perhaps even makes it easier for the government and the corporations who lease it to come up with new (admittedly less likely to be fatal) ways to terrorize you.