Record Industry Sues 532 More U.S. File-Sharers 613
Patik writes "The RIAA today issued 532 new subpoenas for music file swapping, many of them college students using their campus networks. They will not say which ISPs or colleges were involved, but that the users were sharing "substantial amounts" of music files. This brings the total number of subpoenas to 1,977. The RIAA has been averaging $3,000 per settlement so far." Readers Digitus1337 and Warpedcow point to stories respectively at Wired and Reuters.
Great.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great.... (Score:3, Informative)
KLite (Score:3, Informative)
Re:KLite (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:KLite (Score:5, Funny)
Say it with me, folks: Slashdot breaks up long lines, rendering most plaintext links more trouble than they're worth. And enclosing links in anchors is easy. Why, scientists have shown that even a monkey can enclose a link in anchors. Are you stupider than a monkey?
Re:KLite (Score:5, Informative)
You can also pick up AOL 1.0 while your there.
Re:KLite (Score:5, Funny)
Re:KLite (Score:3, Funny)
Go get them! (Score:4, Insightful)
Though they've made around 6M dollars, this is a losing strategy in the long run.
Stop downloading music! (Score:3, Informative)
Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously though, they need to make sure the
punishment isn't worse than the crime. Ruining
a college student's record/life may not fit that
description.
Well.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm being sarcastic, but only to an extent.
From the RIAA perspective, there is no legal reason for you to be sharing their music via p2p. Even if you legally own the CD, and you legally have backup copies, sharing them freely is not legal.
I emailed the RIAA several years back (when this first became an issue during Napster) and asked them about the only legal use I could think of - downloading music that resides on a CD you own because it's faster than r
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Downloading non-RIAA files.
worth the karma (Score:4, Funny)
Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
It must cost the RIAA more than $3,000 per case to file against file swappers. Lawyers don't come cheap...
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA is basically an association of lawyers paid by the various member labels to do exactly this kind of thing.
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
It must cost the RIAA more than $3,000 per case to file against file swappers. Lawyers don't come cheap...
This (bankrupting the RIAA by giving them $3000) is as brilliant as bankrupting Microsoft by buying cheap Xboxes (which is to say, not at all brilliant in the least).
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft covers its loses with the XBox with other business divisions. What does the RIAA do besides sue people that download music that brings in income? At some point, funding the RIAA would become prohibitive for the powers that be in the music industry. I think when they see the futility of suing everyone, they will start to embrace more
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is off-topic, but I feel that this analogy is the best, because like the Middle East, I'm not holding my breath for the RIAA to change its ways.
The RIAA won't change. The RIAA is nothing more than the business end of copyright lawyers. They're not musicians or producers.
Bankrupt the RIAA-Cheaper by the dozen. (Score:4, Funny)
Indian lawyers do.
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:2)
I wasn't aware (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break.
You have no idea if these people are liable (this is civil court, it's liability, not guilt). For one, there is no gaurentee that those files were actually copyrighted files. There are TONS of misnamed files (either delibratly or accidentally) on any given P2P network, and no the RIAA doesn't bother to download and check. Even assuming they are actually the songs they claim to be, there is no way to know that the files were on the computer you think they are. Kaazaa particularly is not known for it's accuracy in pulling lists from computers, it gets it wrong sometimes. Even supposing it is the right list, you have no idea if the person who is associated with the IP is actually the right person. Maybe they have wireless and someone used it (seriously, it's easy to break in, even if they use WEP). Even if it ends up being their computer, you have no idea that they were the one responsible. Virsues, worms and hacks are RAMPANT, and it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to use a hacked box for P2P to shield themselves.
So basically they are saying "Well this IP, which might or might not be for this computer, which might or might not have been under this person's control, might or might not have had this list of files which might or might not be what they claim to be is infringing on our copyright." What? You mean you think you can predetermine guilt from that? Give me a break.
Re:So lets honeypot them.. then sue em for $500m (Score:3, Informative)
Make an app that generates these files then shares them.
If 100000 people run it, (well not only will we get 'bad' fake files, but RIAA might start sueing) then you can sue them for wrongfull sue.
At least it would use up all their resources if suddendly 50000 people have 100000 files each.
You'd have to mix them in with the regular shared files in such a way that it's not possible to recognize which are real and which are fake, or the RIAA w
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
ah, but stormie, you are doing exactly what they want you to do - focusing on the moral aspect of the situation rather than the economic one.
It's been said but it bears repeating: The RIAA isn't in this to do the right thing, to prove that they are innocent lambs being ruthlessly exploited by sinister college students and minimum-wage-earners. Becuase if they were they wouldn't be settling - they'd stick it to 'em. The RIAA is engaged in this course of lawsuits only because they are convinced they're losing money to file-swapping, and they have to make it up somehow. It's just a revenue stream to them; nothing more, nothing less.
They obfuscate this as much as possible by spinning the moral aspects of the situation and painting themselves as the victims of depraved criminal activity. Unfortunately those such as the major media and yourself choose to play into this. All I can say, as somebody with years of experience with the industry, as the former chief engineer at a grammy-winning studio, and as an award-winning composer/singer/songwriter with hopes and dreams of people buying my CDs in stores one day soon, is that if the fucking record industry wants to talk about fucking morals they can fucking bring it.
Seriously. You are talking about one of the most corrupt, immoral, heartless and ruthless industries humankind has ever seen. You're talking about people who have ripped off their artists since the 1920's, have engaged in "payola" since the 1950's, have gotten and kept their artists hooked on drugs to make them easier to manipulate, have colluded with the Mafia and other organized crime, and is now in the grip of an anti-competitive frenzy so nauseatingly banal as to make polka music seem exciting.
The reason they're suing is for money. But they're not scared of P2P for financial reasons. The reason they hate P2P is they're terrified of people getting to hear good music, and then demanding good music from major labels, who've proven repeatedly they don't know the first thing about how to produce any.
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
-
Becuase if they were they wouldn't be settling - they'd stick it to 'em.
I agree with your post, but regarding this one sentence. I remember being a college student paying my own way (or rather having to take out loans to pay my own way) and a $3000 settlement is much more than sticking it to a college student. Depending on their school that's a semester or more of tuition/books/living expenses. I think the fact that the RIAA has made it clear that if you try to fight the minimum settlement amount they'll accept will go up (way up if I recall what they said correctly) shows this is at least partially about the money. Yeah they're scared of P2P because it represents a new way to distribute music and a new way for people to encounter good music (something the RIAA really doesn't seem to have a clue about, as you said), but there's some serious greed there too. Remember the settlements (and judgements) the RIAA gets go to the RIAA. Not to the artists, not to the recording companies, not to the poor innocent workers the RIAA has tried to hype as the real people hurt by piracy -- only to the already over-paid lawyers that make up the RIAA.Given that fact alone, you can understand why the RIAA won't back down from cases, even when it's apparent they've really screwed up (suing 12yo girls for instance). They want the money to pad their already overstuffed pockets. This kind of falls under "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", except in this case it's greed instead of power.
Re:Bankrupt the RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
Still not a sizable amount... (Score:3, Insightful)
$3000 per settlement??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got it all wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You've got it all wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You've got it all wrong (Score:3, Funny)
Way too much Slashdot...
Re:$3000 per settlement??? (Score:5, Funny)
- 99% -- Record Industry Execs
- 0.05% -- Band manager
- 0.03% -- Hookers and blow
- 0.01% -- Flowers for the receptionist
- 0.005% -- A couple of beers for the record execs' buds
- 0.004% -- The Anti-Slashdot lobby
- 0.001% -- The band, Counting Crows. They can divvy it up however they want between themselves.
Is it clear now?Re:$3000 per settlement??? (Score:4, Funny)
- 99% -- Record Industry Execs
- 0.05% -- Band manager
- 0.03% -- Hookers and blow
- 0.01% -- Flowers for the receptionist
- 0.005% -- A couple of beers for the record execs' buds
- 0.004% -- The Anti-Slashdot lobby
- 0.001% -- The band, Counting Crows. They can divvy it up however they want between themselves.
Is it clear now?It's clear once you do the math: their accountant is skimming 0.9% off the top!
Re:$3000 per settlement??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$3000 per settlement??? (Score:5, Informative)
They might break even if everyone settled, but again, having worked in a law firm, I know there are a lot of people who just can't pay or be tracked down.
Is it working for the RIAA? (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Smack your momma good deals! [dealsites.net]
RIAA Introduces New Business Model (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RIAA Introduces New Business Model (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't that the SCO business model?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time is against them (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this measure, which is entirely legal and non-violent "terrorist-like"? Or is everything we don't like supposed to be referred to as "terrorism" now? I didn't get the memo...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Time is against them (Score:3, Insightful)
You try and scare the rest into behaving the way you want by randomly picking a few and attacking them. Make everyone feel threatened, knowing they could be next.
Re:Time is against them (Score:5, Informative)
The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the word "terrorize" includes:
And that, essentially, is what the Recording Industry is achieving with these lawsuits. Right or wrong, they cannot possibly sue everybody who illegally redistributes their music over the popular file sharing networks; the best they can hope to accomplish is to file suit against enough people to scare the rest into submission. I believe that this is what the grandparent poster meant by calling the RIAA's methods "a weak terrorist-like tactic".
(I do agree with you, though - the word "terrorism" is unbelievably overused nowadays.)
Re:Time is against them (Score:5, Insightful)
I have 8GB of music on my work computer. It's all legal - I own the CD or vinyl to match each one. But you have to admit - it's easier to download a copy of a song than it is to "rip" it from vinyl.
If I shared all that music, I would expect to be sued by the RIAA. They target people sharing a lot of music.
So... I don't share it. That means that there are 8GB of music that AREN'T available for download. In fact, by scaring people into not sharing their music, they are winning.
I'm not going to spend $3,000 for "the cause."
Cause you know it's working (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, come on. This isn't going to work. They can't sue everyone in the country, and sampling has proven itself ineffective at best. They need a new strategy, if they ever hope to stem the tide. Legal alternatives may be doing well too, but sometimes you just can't be free. They should just give up and find some other way to increase sales. Perhaps they could make better albums.
Re:Cause you know it's working (Score:5, Funny)
Groves?
Fscking druids ruining it for everybody.
Troll me (Score:2, Insightful)
RIAA do have some claim to the money.
I mean, artists make it, people want it, and they
buy it. But guess who makes the people want it:
the RIAA folk.
That's right. Somebody has to pay for the promotion,
the studio time, the slot on MTV and ClearChannel
so that the general population knows what to like.
I find it amusing how we pay them to tell us what
to like, but somebody has to.
Re:Troll me (Score:3, Insightful)
Good odds, keep sharing! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen numbers that claim 50,000,000 people in the US use P2P applications. Let's do the math:
In approximately 8 months the industry has sued 1,977 people. That's 1 in every 25,290.84 people. Now we get into speculation. Assume:
they keep up their current trend of filing that many lawsuits every 8 months.
the number of P2P users in the U.S. stays static
you were born today, will live for 74 years and are precocious enough to use P2P software today, the day of your birth.
That's 195,064 file sharers they'll sue in your lifetime. Heck, you have a 1 in 256.33 chance of being sued over your entire life, you lucky newborn!
Oh, there's one assumption I forgot to mention:
Assume: The RIAA racketeers are still in business your whole life.
NB: My math may be off, I've had a few cold ones.
Re:Good odds, keep sharing! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, let's...
50,000,000 users * $3,000 average settlement = $150,000,000,000
Crap, why even make music. They just need more lawyers! Somewhere, in a top secret lab, the RIAA is cloning lawyers.
I see those bastards plans clearly now.
Re:Good odds, keep sharing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your numbers are:
Time (T)=8 months
Probability (P)=1/25290
Cost (C)=3000
With monthly financial risk = (P*C)/T, if each month you put away 1.483 cents, you would on average have enough money to pay your settlement fees by the time you were sued.
Now assume that the RIAA gets more aggressive and settles less, and through the courts gets a $1 million verdict in 100% of the people it sues (1977 people / 8 months). The monthly financial risk then is $4.94 a month.
So even if your punishment is $1 million, the financial risk of getting sued is less than any online music service with a monthly fee. It's also less than 5 songs on iTunes a month, which probably isn't nearly as many songs as Kazaa users download. Why does the RIAA think their legal efforts will convince people with such a low financial risk?
And here's an interesting twist -- why doesn't an insurance company insure people against RIAA lawsuits for $10/mo so they can download as much as they want on Kazaa? Isn't this similar to what Redhat is doing to protect its customers from SCO? I'd much rather pay $10/mo to download whatever I want without risk of being sued than pay the same money to MusicMatch for their inferior service. And if everyone did the same, peer-to-peer services would blossom again with tons of quality content from all genres imaginable.
Re:Good odds, keep sharing! (Score:3, Informative)
success? (Score:3, Interesting)
List of Colleges (Score:5, Informative)
The individuals included in today's legal action were on the networks of the following universities (listed in alphabetical order of state or name): University of Arizona; University of California, Berkeley; California State University -- Northridge; University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Drexel University; George Mason University; George Washington University; Georgetown University; Indiana University; University of Indianapolis; Loyola Marymount University; Marquette University; University of Maryland; University of Michigan; New York University; University of Northern Colorado; University of Pennsylvania; University of Southern California; Stanford University; Vanderbilt University; and Villanova University.
http://www.cpwire.com/archive/2004/3/23/1540.asp [cpwire.com]
RIAA Radar (Score:5, Informative)
Remember: spread the word, but don't sound like a fanatic.
Re:RIAA Radar (Score:3, Insightful)
if i just stop buying their albums won't the RIAA assume that others (or me) are just stealing them anyway, and use their lost sales as statistics to why more, tougher draconian laws must be passed?
catch 22
Every time the RIAA does this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Best news yet today (Score:3, Interesting)
Not because I'm some sort of RIAA nazi, but rather because it is neccessary in order to drive forward new methods of distribution, as well as innovation for smaller, non-mega-supra-corp bands. Once the RIAA/MPAA has shot themselves in the collective feet enough through negative press and marketing, consumers will demand alternative bands, distribution, technology, etc. The mega-bands might even make enough fuss due to lost sales from their mad-as-hell fans.
Me, I'm just sitting back enjoying the ride waiting for that day.
Re:Best news yet today (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? Have you met anyone under 20 recently? 90% of the kids out there don't even know what the hell a RIAA is, nor do they care. Neither do they seem to care that an album costs $18. You know why? All their friends are buying Linkin Park CD's and they don't want to be left out. At any cost.
Face it, the RIAA is selling to a largely agnostic market. It's just the same as the Nike sweatshop phenomenon.
that RIAA guy is hilarious. (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is a group that does not appreciate as much as the general population that it is illegal to share copyright music on a peer-to-peer network," said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America. "More education is necessary. One form of education is lawsuits."
you know, i bet he goes to bed all fuzzy inside.
Waaah (Score:3, Funny)
For those looking for some privacy: (Score:3, Informative)
Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon people, this doesn't even count as news anymore. People violate copyrights, people get sued. Let it go.
Now, what I consider the bigger "news" from this involves the experiment the RIAA has run on the level of stupidity in the general population. 1977 suits so far, and people still keep using Kazaa to download this crap. Get a clue, Kazaa users! At the very least, switch to a different P2P app. Perferable one with at least a tad bit of privacy, like FreeNet.
Or better yet, just go back to the way that has worked for the past 30-40 years, from the days before P2P - Swap music and movies privately, offline, with your friends. You can get the same stuff, with absolutely no chance of an RIAA nastygram as a resuly. You can even do so as a sort of buying pool, where you and a dozen friends agree not to overlap in your purchases, thus maximizing your available music library. "Need" to find something really obscure, possibly out-of-press (print? Whatever you call music that you can no longer buy new, for any price)? Hook up with a fan group, where you can get material far more obscure than even Kazaa's bottom-20 list.
Or, best option of all, just buy from indie labels. Hey, we all have a favorite band, and I'll admit even I will buy whatever a handful of RIAA-signed groups puts out. But for the rest of the "fluffy listening" music, look into companies like Magnatune, or go direct to the artists' websites. The musician gets a FAR bigger cut, you pay less ($5/cd on average, in my experience, for buying direct from the artist), and best of all, the RIAA gets nothing.
In 1977.... (Score:4, Funny)
In 1977:
February 11 - A 20.2-kg lobster is caught off Nova Scotia (heaviest known crustacean).
Coincidence?!? YOU Decide
I don't understand why people are settling... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that no one uses the most obvious defense of plausible deniability:
THERE. DONE.
Even if they only have to prove a preponderence of the evidence, they would STILL have to deal with all of those items AND in the end you would still have a hard disk with no songs to beat them over the head with. It seems to me they could NEVER win one of these cases.
I don't know about anyone else, but that's much cheaper than settling for several thousand dollars. And that's if you don't hire a lawyer and contest that the RIAA don't have the right to get your personal info and the ISP don't have the right to hand it over as at least one person has done successfully.
I mean FFS, if people can get away with the "a virus hacked into my computer and did it" defense for criminal cases...
Re:I don't understand why people are settling... (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, if you actually are guilty of swapping files illegally, it makes it that much harder to win in court.
This is great! (Score:4, Insightful)
- free up bandwidth for us non copyright infringers
- result in fewer infringers on p2p networks, thus substantiating the slashdot choruses of "go after the users, leave technology alone" and "p2p apps such as kazaa have many important non-infringing uses."
- drive people to the newest pay-per-download service of the week. after all, a two years ago you couldn't log on to slashdot without seeing a "if they only charged 99c per song download there would be no need for things like kazaa" and "I'd gladly pay 99c per song so that i dont have to buy 'filler'")
- by going after college students, the RIAA (or whoever) can't be after money, since they ain't got none. The riaa will doubtlessly lose more money in lawyer fees than they will collect in judgements. they MUST be about sending a message, therefore. this is a good thing, because that is the right message to send--copyrights (such as the ones that form the basis of the GPL, Britney's music, and the bulk of work done by software developers who visit slashdot) should be respected, completely anti-copyright idiot/zealots notwithstanding (bring on the flames).
but, of course, instead of responses consistent with the old slashdot argument of "leave the technology alone, go after the infringers", expect to see the regular carping and whining here about the RIAA.Cue devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, everyone bitched how the RIAA was attacking the P2P networks themselves instead of the users participating in the unauthorized distribution of the copyrighted materials. The RIAA is doing exactly what everyone suggested - going after the pirates.
As for the argument that your chances of getting caught are pretty slim - yea, it's just like speeding on the highway when you're keeping up with traffic. You're still breaking the law. Just don't be surprised if in the future there's cameras along the highway that take a picture of your licence plate, and later in the mail each and every one of you get a ticket. That's what happens when you pay more attention to the methods of enforcement than the laws. Likewise, if you keep ignoring the copyright laws, eventually there will be better ways for the RIAA to catch more people and it won't be a matter of enforcement anymore.
Re:Cue devil's advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
Or do a combination of the above and visit a site like my company [netmusic.com]. We carry the CDBaby and Magnatune catalog, as well as several other independents. We are also negotiating with the majors, but our multiple formats (currently just VBR MP3s but soon to include OGG, AAC and even WMA) as well as a definitive lack of DRM scare them... lots.
RIAA to host online chat with college newspapers (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an editor at the my college's newspaper. I received this in my inbox today from The Collegiate Presswire:
Looks like the new lawsuits are just a part of a well-planned campaign to strike fear into us immoral college students. I guess this "conference" will consist mostly of the RIAA spewing propaganda with the hope that the editors and reporters in the chat will carry it back to their publications.
This news is very depressing. Shame on the RIAA for suing students! They could at least go after people who can afford the court fees.
I've found this site [epitonic.com] to be a good source of free downloadable MP3s. Gotta go grab more in light of this recent news ;)
do these guys fight back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would'nt it make sense if they got together and fought the RIAA? I know it seems easy to say n not to do when your sued by a giant but wouldnt they just keep suing people if no one fights back.
Re:do these guys fight back? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:do these guys fight back? (Score:5, Interesting)
If 1k people did that, the RIAA would *never* have the legal resources to handle the situation.
Industry built on Piracy sues pirates (Score:3, Insightful)
These are the people who caused many of the founders of jazz, blues and rock and roll to die in poverty. What is happing now is not piracy, it is devine justice.
this has got to stop... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my problem statement:
1. File sharers like the p2p model as a way of finding new music. They like it partly because it's free, but my suspicion is that there's more to it than that. They like the model. Radio is dead, and the RIAA killed it, via ClearChannel. I'm going to suggest that, given a workable model that preserves file sharing, but allows musicians and their promoters to earn revenues, file sharers will move to a legal model. But it has to preserve the basics of the current open file sharing model.
2. File sharers want to use whatever client they feel like. Any "legalized" file sharing method which forces users into using a specific locked, closed source client is likely to fail.
3. A flat fee system, with built in means to prevent cheating (leaking to uncontrolled distribution) and gaming the system (permitting individuals to artificially inflate download numbers for a particular song) would generate sufficient revenues and a method for divvying up those revenues that would be acceptable to the music industry and musicians.
That's a tall order, but I think it can be done. Consider this:
If you pay a flat fee into my proposed system, you have the rights to:
a. download content with copyrights held by participating contributors freely, by any method.
b. upload that participating content, but only to those that have also paid the fee.
I believe this can be done. To meet my criterion 2, it has to be done by defining a protocol, not a specific client. Criterion 3 can be met by making it trivial to police, to ensure that subscribers aren't cheating. So here's my protocol, at least in a cartoon-back-of-the-envelope form:
Subscribers use a client which authenticates with the license administrator's server. This authentication may be long term, results in a symmetric key shared with the server and bound to a subscriber's identity, and which is your proof that you are a participant. The protocol requires that, prior to actually sharing any content (but not necessarily advertizing it) you perform a 3-way authentication with the party that wishes to share your content and the administration server farm. This can be done using a Needham-Schroeder protocol, by which the administration server pushes, on request, a symmetric key to the two parties. By using this protocol, you have fulfilled your obligation to only upload content to participating subscribers. Your proof is provided by the administration server in distributing the key. Note that you don't need to know the identity of the other party; you only know that they are a subscriber. The symmetric key you share with them is then used to encrypt the content you send them.
Data gathering in this scheme is trivial; the administrators take a sample of the content which has been distributed by scanning the upload directories of subscribers. What is measured is the relative distribution of content, not the number of uploads, and because you don't know the identity of the scanning party, it's very difficult to game the system.
Policing is also simple. The administrative server can ping authenticated subscribers to verify that they aren't using any other file sharing protocol.
So, there may be some things in here you find objectionable. But is this a fair compromise? Could this work?
Comments?
Krill
foreign proxy? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been said before..... (Score:5, Funny)
So at $3000 a settlement (Score:4, Insightful)
No problem.
Legal defense (Score:5, Interesting)
They're using the law against us, why not use it to fight them? They're soon going to stop suing people if they know they can get their cases beaten in the courts.
I'm pretty sure this is the fastest way to beat them, or at least slow them down a bunch.
This is the market in action (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked many more years ago than I care to admit in a record store and I got a very handsome discount on music (OK, it was pre-CD and we did actually have some 8-tracks. Yeah, that long ago). Know what? I bought loads of music out of my wages and I didn't care that much if some of it was cack. Now I can afford to buy some music but as I see such a load of rubbish on sale (Dido? Am I the only one who thinks she's mooing?) I don't buy much at all. And I don't download. You've got to really want to hear something before you'll bother with the faffing around in p2p to find a decent copy.
Music is overpriced. People know that the price of a CD is too high for its value in terms of entertainment.
As purchasers listen to their new CD they realise that they've got 2 or 3 decent tracks and a load of filler. How much did I pay for this junk? As resentment builds and they see the tracks they want to hear available on p2p networks, they choose to get the music they want, rather than the music the industry wants them to have.
The industry is pricing singles at too high a proportion of the price of a full album. Result: death of the CD single.
The price of a CD album is set at an artificial point to seem more valuable than the nearest rounded-down price point (example: $18.99 rather than $14.99). Result: resentment by buyers, who seek out cheaper sources for their CD's until the industry says Whoa there! WE can offshore production to save money and increase profits, but you suckers can still pay our price in your home territory rather than buy offshore.
Unless the price of CDs and DVDs falls to a lower price point the industry will face continuing efforts to circumvent copyright. Let's face it, if a CD cost half of what it does today, would you bother to download it? To rip it? The industry is NOT giving artists big royalties and they're not investing heavily in A&R. They are just coining it, and getting scared that the public have rumbled their cosy little game.
When a commodity is overpriced in the martketplace, the price must fall or the market will collapse.
What I don't understand.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Right on! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Right on! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Record Industry's business model is geared towards them telling you what you should be listening to, not the other way around. They simply are not going to stand for listeners being able to pick and chose music on their own. The best way out of their trap is to find some independent bands that you like and avoid RIAA stuff altogether.
That's just you (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdotters love to say this...as though the majority of the people on Kazaa are "sampling" all those albums in order to run to the store and purchase them to re-get them.
I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for stuff. I'd say over 90%. You're being foolish and purposely stoic if you pretend
Re:That's just you (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the majority of people I know do.
I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for stuff. I'd say over 90%. You're being foolish and purposely stoic if you pretend otherwise.
I was merely responding to another post. Pardon me for not blurring the argument by involving every issue that's even slightly related.
(Someone: "Apples suck." I: "No, apples rule." You: "You're purposely ignoring the fact that many apples are green!")
suing people who are illegally distributing their product
It's the musicians' product. Never mind that many musicians are just as unhappy about the RIAA as most p2p users.
OBVIOUS TRUTH is mp3 is a LOSSY CODEC (Score:3, Informative)
But that's beside the point. I'm assuming you know the difference between MP3 and PCM. How can you say that one is "re-getting" something when the two codecs are so dissimilar? Is one "re-getting" something when you buy a CD of something you taped off the radio? No, because you are buying it in a different and superior format. And yes, I now own *dozens* of CD's that I wouldn't we
Re:That's just you (Score:3, Interesting)
Bonch's post
I would say listening to it first is a pretty good way to decide whether something is valuable to you.
Slashdotters love to say this...as though the majority of the people on Kazaa are sampling all those albums in order to run to the store and purchase them to re-get them.
I don't get this incessant need to avoid stating the OBVIOUS TRUTH, which is that p2p is used for a shitload of outright piracy and avoiding paying for stuff. I'd say over 90%. You're being foolish and purposely stoic if yo
Re:That's just you (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I commented on a related topic, someone responded by commenting that the song he/she/it downloaded lead to he/she/it buying the songs in question. (or somethign to that effect), as if that was somehow a rebuttal to my comment.
I'm sort of tired of people who cite increased CD sales to somehow justify piracy. That's totally beside the point. It's the copyright owners' prerogative to dictate how the works are sold, or not sold, for that matter. If the copyright owners didn't want the increased sales from allowing P2P, that's still their prerogative. It does not change their right to distribute or not distribute the work as they please. They can sew the master copy inside a matress and sit on it, if that's what they want to do.
Our prerogative, as consumers, is to not pay for said works if we don't agree with the terms under which they make it available. That's it. Piracy is piracy whether or not P2P leads to million or billion CD sales. Smart labels will realize this and capitalize on it; stupid ones will fight until they run out of money and lose to the others with a little more business savvy.
The industry's treatment of artists is also a completely separate discussion. No matter how crappy the artists' deals are, it STILL doesn't transfer copyright to pirates. If you don't like the way the labels do business, it's your prerogative not to buy from them. It still doesn't grant you rights to use the works they have the rights to without permission.
If you don't like the copyright laws, try to have the laws changed. However, until the laws do change, you STILL don't have the right to pirate copyrighted works.
Nobody forced these kids to distribute these files. If they were in fact participating in piracy, they deserve whatever reprimand they get.
Get it through your thick skulls -- It's the copyright owners' right not have their work distributed through P2P.
Copyright works both ways... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright holders have to allow certain uses for the distribution of their works (educational, etc.)
Why is that when copyright holders and their supporters (e.g the MPAA/RIAA) ask us to "respect copyright", they conveniently neglect their own imposition of copyright protections that can be easily dismantled by anyone but those willing to follow the law, and thus designed only to remove copyright
Re:Free trial (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure no one would mind if I stole both cars so I could try them each out. I'll buy them if I like them. I swear.
Re:Right on! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sharing a few thousand songs is a bit extreme, I agree (still no reason for legal action though, in my opinion). Personally, I share the stuff I like best so I might get others hooked on it. And I'm betting many of those who do will actually buy the CD just like I do.
Re:Right on! (Score:4, Insightful)
Subscription music services. Streaming web radio. Promotional CDs. Compilation discs. Reviews in magazines. Free promotional compilation discs in magazines with reviews that you can subscribe to.
... all suffer from the same ailment I mentioned: only one or two tracks. It might be me or it might be my taste in music, but the only way for me to decide if I like something is by listening to it entirely a few times. Small parts of an album often give an either wrongfully positive or negative impression of the entire composition.
All of you people who keep crying and complaining that the prices are all too high
I'm perfectly willing to shell out [average CD price] for a CD, as long as I'm reasonably sure it's actually worth it.
and the labels are all unfair,
You are wrongfully accusing me and a lot of other people of ignorance. I think the average /.-er is perfectly well aware of the existence of independant labels that care about music, not money.
and you'd be fine if they'd just wake up and provide a low-cost alternative.
There's no need for an alternative. The current system is turning out to be real good for music as an art (many people are finding, and subsequently paying for, music they would never have found without p2p), and real bad for those who make more money when everyone just listens to & buys whatever junk is currently at #1 in the charts.
Re:Right on! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Right on! (Score:2, Insightful)
That should actually read:
If you love the music industry executives, thier spouses and mistresses AND thier nosetrails... buy the overpriced shit they sell you.
You know you want it, and it practically belongs to them!
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
When translated to reality, reads:
"I'm justifying stealing some artist's music because I don't like that an exec who heads the label makes money in a capitalist system. I'll ignore that the artist willingly signed their contract and that distributing intellectual property without the copyright holder's permission is illegal.
Instead, I'll sidestep the issue of ripping off artists and say, "Here, look at this, it's a rich RIAA exec and his wife!" Thereby completely distracting the issue with something irrelevant that the anti-social, anti-capitalist, generally-broke Slashdotters can rally against.
And we'll pretend it's actually WRONG for the RIAA to be suing people still illegally distributing their product--even after all the awareness of its immorality and illegality. Never mind that when Napster was being sued, Slashdotters were saying the RIAA should be suing individual downloaders instead because they're the ones breaking the law!
Now they're doing exactly what Slashdotters said they should do, and suddenly it's wrong. Because I'm really trying to justify the piracy I participate in daily on my DSL connection. I'm going to pretend it's not illegal, not immoral, and I'm going to rid myself of the guilt of downloading by trying to remove the image of me being a criminal and instead paint the RIAA as the bad guy."
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Re:Right on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that is -precisely- what I do when it comes to music, especially when it comes to electronic- music, where there are so many DJs/groups releasing songs/remixes/mashups; with many only being released on wax, etc.
Tell me, if I hear a snippet of say, something like, "D-Funktional" by Mekon featuring Afrika Bambaataa, where I can go to hear the full version?
The answer is nowhere. And this is why P2P rocks.
Re:Right on! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want music, buy it! If it's not valuable to you, don't.
No, don't buy it ! If you want music, get it through the most convenient, cheapest way you can ! If it's not valuable to you, don't bother.
Now that I gave a reply in the same tone of your post, let me rumble a bit.
Here at
How about bringing us all more about what you think. For instance I would like to remind you that laws should reflect the best interests of society. They are generally very, very arbitrary in their content.
Music was historically freely available -- those who liked it, listened to it, those who had talent, repeated what they listened to. After thousands of years of Music being free, and some (how many?) hundred years of copyright law, I would say it is fair to ask: "It the copyright way of treating musical works really the correct one ?". If so, why ?
Music is, at its core, a comunal event. It was alway played to be listened. The player needs the listener as much as the listener needs the player. Why should the listeners pay the player, and not the player pay the listeners ? The answer is, because the extra-hyped, created celebrities, super publicized top performers are few in number, and many groups of people would like to have the same performers coming over to play, so an auction effect raises stakes and pays them a lot.
BUT is this fair to equally talented, not so famous bands ? No it isn't. Is the star creation system, through major labels, an optimal allocator of musical talent -- I do not believe so. So why not let the labels starve, and stop feeding the star system, so that each one starts looking around for local talent, which will not be as expensive ?
I would rather have a new world than risk a world in which I need to pay for each time I press play on my music jukebox. One Microsoft is enough, already.
Sorry for the long post. It's late at night and I decided to throw my 25 cents in.
Re:No sympathy here (Score:5, Insightful)
So your point is...? (Score:3, Funny)
Please?