Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News IT

Interview With Mark Cuban About Grokster 209

Posted by samzenpus from the what-else-did-he-say dept.
David Goldenberg writes "Gelf Magazine is featuring an interview with Mark Cuban about the grokster case. In the interview, Cuban tells Gelf he decided to get involved because of the "copyright law and the politicians who get paid to pimp for the studios and labels." Our previous coverage here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview With Mark Cuban About Grokster More

Interview With Mark Cuban About Grokster

Comments Filter:

  • Who? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Who the hell is Mark Cuban....?

    • Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:41PM (#12097224)
      What rock do you live under?

      He's obviously the guy who invented the cigar.

    • Re:Who? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @01:57AM (#12097834)
      Who the hell is Mark Cuban....?

      Mark Cuban was one of the few dot-com millionaires smart enough to cash in his chips and leave the table before the bust.

      He went on to buy the Dallas Mavericks and make a big jackass of himself ever since, but the sort of jackass who is fun to have around at a party.

      He has been fined by the NBA for unsportmanlike conduct more than any other owner... probably more than any team owner in the history of sports.

      He recently produced a "reality TV" program which was sort of a low-rent version of the Apprentice, in which he gave a million dollars away, making the contestants do really stupid shit and eliminating the losers on the basis of his own fickle whims.

  • They seem to disagree (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CSMastermind ( 847625 ) <freight_train10@hotmail.com> on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:20PM (#12097100)
    Quoted from the article:
    GM: Does the Betamax precedent apply to the Grokster case, even though people are using digital technology like Grokster to amass libraries, not just to tape shows and enhance viewing convenience?

    MC: Yes. People amassed libraries on tape as well. You can pick up any movie-collector mag and see the ads to buy a VHS or DVD of any TV show ever made. That's a big library, and those ads have been there for at least 10 years. The industry doesn't care.

    Quoted from the a lawyer for MGM on Channle One today:
    Betamax doesn't apply here.

    Hmm I suppose that's for the courts to decide.

  • legitimate uses of P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:28PM (#12097148) Homepage
    The interview isn't very informative about what's going on with the Grokster case. Here [nytimes.com] is a NY Times article (free registration required, yeah yeah). Basically the record industry is trying to outlaw a technology because the technology could be used to commit a crime. Continuing with this logic, we should outlaw guns, cars, photocopiers, and VCRs.

    It's too bad that P2P has been hit with both the stigma and the legal assault resulting from many people's belief that they're entitled to free professionally produced pop music, and free professionally produced porn. If they want some free information, they should make some free information. If they think free music would be cool, they should make some free music. If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog.

    Meanwhile, there are a lot of possible legitimate uses of P2P technology, but they're not really being taken advantage of because of the stigma. For instance, P2P is probably the logical way to distribute open-source software today, but most people use server-based mechanisms instead.

    • Not precisely (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ari_j ( 90255 )
      I think that MGM is arguing exactly what you're saying, and I'm not sure how far along the continuum I'm about to draw you Grokster wants the line drawn.

      Consider a continuum from a point where there is no possible infringing use of a service to a point where there is not even a pretense of possible noninfringing use (to the extent that the service provider goes out of their way to encourage you to use it for copyright infringement, with everything in between being capable of representation as a point on
      • [...] to the extent that the service provider goes out of their way to encourage you to use it for copyright infringement [...]

        You mean like "Rip, Mix, Burn" ?

        Or "The killer app for the computer industry is piracy," - Eisner

        "That's like selling a crowbar and telling someone to smash, bash and steal," [quote from unamed entertainment industry ].

        Make no mistake, even an "intent" ruling is dangerous because intent is difficult to disprove especially if the service/product ends up being used to infringe and
    • I've got lots of free music on my site: http://www.theexperiments.com/ [theexperiments.com]

      as for pictures of me naked, you don't wanna see that, trust me. :)

      At least it sounds like there's some hope that the Supreme Court understands the issues and the potential for stifling new technology by outlawing P2P.

      -geekd

    • Re:legitimate uses of P2P (Score:5, Funny)

      by kubrick ( 27291 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @12:38AM (#12097439)
      If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog.

      Please, don't encourage them.

    • "Basically the record industry is trying to outlaw a technology because the technology could be used to commit a crime."

      It is MGM vs. Grokster, not "MGM vs. P2P technology." In fact, the recording industry is partnering with Mashboxx [mashboxx.com] and other permission-based P2P platforms. Many Slashdotters like to slippery-slope this into "the record industry hates technology" when indeed they simply hate technology that allows people to get their stuff without paying for it.

      You are, of course, correct that P2P i

      • It is MGM vs. Grokster, not "MGM vs. P2P technology."

        Centralized P2P (stupid term anyway) is nothing more than load balancing and pooling of distributed resources. Decentralized P2P is about letting a group of people connect to eachother and do whatever the hell they want (not unlike the Internet model, with Grokster as the ISP, eh?)

        Basicly, they're trying to stop a group of people from getting together and doing what they want by banning the locations and the tools, and not the people nor the "contraban
    • >Continuing with this logic, we should outlaw guns Finally a good idea.
    • At the risk of shamelessly pimping my blog, I recently posted an entry [locut.us] describing MGM Vs Grokster and the issues:

      The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the MGM vs Grokster case today. For those living under a rock, at issue is the legal decision that prevented the movie industry from killing the VCR in the mid-80s (the "Sony-Betamax decision"). In retrospect the Supreme Court did them a big favour since most of the movie industry's revenue now comes from video rentals. Unfortunately the movie ind

  • Modern altruism (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FlyByPC ( 841016 )
    Now there's a good way to buy yourself some karma. Support the EFF. Well, either that or bankroll the fledgling space-travel industry.

    Rather than the they're-getting-what's-coming-to-them attitude, though, the question about the RIAA would have been an ideal way of bringing up the possibility of artists' selling songs directly for very little money, still making a lot, and cutting out all of the unnecessary middlemen...

  • Mark's talks about this issue in his blog (Score:5, Informative)

    by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:34PM (#12097188) Homepage
    Read Mark Cuban's Blog [blogmaverick.com] where he talks more about this.

  • Mark Cuban's blog. (Score:4, Informative)

    by IconBasedIdea ( 838710 ) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:35PM (#12097197)
    Cubes has plenty of opinions on everything at his blog, but here's some more MGM v Grokster for you all... http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000237029704 / [blogmaverick.com] http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000890030093 / [blogmaverick.com] http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000523038163 / [blogmaverick.com]

  • P2P is not illegal (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mantus ( 65568 )
    Using the logic behind the *IAA's argument roads should be outlawed because they can be used to traffic drugs and other such illegal things.
    Targeting idividual users is the only thing that the law really should allow.
    I believe our copyright and patent system needs reform, but until that happens stealing copyrighted works is still a punishable offense.

    • Re:P2P is not illegal (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lemnik ( 835774 )

      The problem is that the people who actually decide whether P2P is illegal or not are totally ignorant to what it really is. All they know is that millions of people are using the technology to "steal" other peoples work.

      We need to see more legal uses of P2P technology. Bit-torrent is a great system, but it's been abused. There are plenty of other possible uses for P2P apps (DNS servers that discover peers through P2P lookups; P2P Radio Stations; etc).

      If we don't see some blatently legal, popular, and

    • "I believe our copyright and patent system needs reform, but until that happens stealing copyrighted works is still a punishable offense."

      That's the problem right there: we all agree on the first part, the second part is the crazy part. Copyright infringement shouldn't be a punishable criminal offense, it should be a matter for a civil court. Such a lawsuit should be entirely dependent upon the plaintiff to move the case forward. What we have right now is the state in collusion with corporations for the pr
      • Unfortunately you get that going the other way as well.
        If it's purely civil what happens when a big corp with deep pockets and TEAMS of laywers on fixed payroll decide to make thier own closed source version of some gpl app owned by one guy who's main job only pays 40k/year and is raising kids.
        You got it, the big money wins again.
        Not saying criminalizing it is the right answer eigther. But keeping it purely civil doesn't alone balance the scales any, and may make it worse.

        Mycroft
    • Stealing... taking without just compensation.

      I could seriously argue that allowing media executives to live in my nation is compensation enough given the trash which they produce. What gives them the right to harass my citizens with their goons and lawsuits? I don't see the inalienable right to squeeze consumers for every dollar they're worth written down anywhere.

      The courts, flatly, should tell the RIAA and anyone else who attempts to peddle IP to cope. Revise the business model, quit whining, face re
  • I truly hope that the decision goes the way of the Betamax decision. Sadly, as with the Betamax decision, the content producers will make out like bandits in the long run. I sure would like to find a way to penalize for this litigation, but the consequences of doing so would probably not be worth it.
    • What is so inherently wrong about the content producers making a lot of money? As long as they aren't making it by something that is unethical (and I don't consider it unethical simply to sell things instead of giving them away), what is wrong with it? If they are doing something evil and bad and wrong, then I agree with you. But simply making a lot of money is not inherently wrong.

  • the long view (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:47PM (#12097245)
    I imagine a time in the not-too-far future, when anyone, anywhere in the world, will have instant access to ANY audio, video, or written thing that has ever been created, INSTANTLY.

    But to the owners of massive amounts of Intellectual Property (like movie studios and record companies), the way people get their music, movies, books, etc should remain the status quo, with minor adjustments to further stop copyright infringment from P2P networks, non-DRMed song files, TV signals with no "broadcast flags," etc.

    Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.

    It is this future that much energy is current being spent to stop. Shame on the narrow-minded! Shame on the selfish! Shame on the short-signted!

    • Re:the long view (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:54PM (#12097271)
      Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.

      Imagine if the UN, individual governments, individual governments controlled by Big Business, and Big Business themselves get to control the global communication network the way they want.

      We won't have instant access to anything except what they want us to. Free speech doesn't exist as it's bad for business. Free ideas cannot be distributed as it's bad for business.

      Imagine that and remember to vote in the next election and take an active role in pressuring your local representatives to do "The Right Thing".
      • than big business.

        Already we have seen many cases where a court is used to remove information from the public forum. The easiest method to bury something these days is to brand it with the word "hate". Hate-Crime, Hate-Speech, Hate-Etc.

        Why businesses would exclude the information is so that they avoid being dragged into court and having even more of their dealings managed by outside forces.

        If anything courts and governments are bigger threats to freedom of information because it does not profit them to
    • I really don't expect the quality to remain the same, better in some ways, but I think generally worse in most ways.

      Except for the people that have signed away such rights, most people are already free to release what they want to the public domain or some form of copyleft. The thing is, the people that have the talents to produce quality material generally want to use those talents to make money. I don't know if anyone has made money releasing media direct to copyleft and public domain, it is anything b

      • Re:the long view (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jamienk ( 62492 )
        When the printing pess was invented (before which BTW most people in Europe were illiterate, to say nothing of all the other GREAT THINGS it has given the world), the Christian Monks (who rewrote by hand all that needed to be copied) argued with the pro-press techies:

        "How will the Monks make money then?! Answer me that, and I'll entertain your flights of fancy. But first, how, oh how, will the Monks make money?!?"

        Looking back and having to do it all over, isn't it absurd to weigh the Monks concerns agains
        • "How will the Monks make money then?! Answer me that, and I'll entertain your flights of fancy. But first, how, oh how, will the Monks make money?!?"

          AFAIK no one ever denied monks the right to copy books. Something new came along that could do the same thing more efficiently.

          With music, however, someone still needs to write, perform and record it. No P2P can remove those expenses from the equation. All those skills require years of education. Just being a serious musician is a full-time job. Now what is

    • I imagine a time in the not-too-far future, when anyone, anywhere in the world, will have instant access to ANY audio, video, or written thing that has ever been created, INSTANTLY.

      ...and it is not all bright, but I believe it is inevitable. It will come together with anonymity. A distributed, anonymous storage network along the lines of Freenet (except it actually works well...), growing to contain our joint information. A cluster of storage clusters the way Internet is the network of networks.

      Copyrigh
      • You've got a future in writing if you want it. Possibly even in speach writing for politicians. Or perhaps respectable fiction
        Not shure if what you said has much validity, but you shure said it well. Sounded like the premis to some sci-fi novell.
        (consider this a backhanded compliment:)

        Mycroft
    • *Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.*

      that will never happen with the way corporations are acting now, sitting on vast amounts of publications they don't want to publish anymore themselfs.. and are not letting anyone else do it for them either. vast amounts of "intellectual property" are alr

  • Nashville Copyright Activists (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SonicSpike ( 242293 ) on Wednesday March 30, 2005 @11:57PM (#12097286) Journal
    I attend Middle State Tennessee University in the Nashville area. My major is the recording industry management program and I am about to graduate in 36 days and seek employment as an audio engineer.

    I have been required to take music biz and law courses including a Copyright Law course as part of the standard curriculum. Often they will bring in experts and big names in the industry to discuss current topics that matter to the music biz.

    One gentleman I met is Michael Harrington. He has been an expert witness in copyright and sampling cases involving the Dixie Chicks, Beastie Boys, 2 Live Crew. He gave a lecture at our school a few months ago about the current state of copyright. I attened the lecture planning on educating him about current technology and how the Internet works (most people in the industry don't have a clue). Come to find out he was already very educated on the subject; he is a member of EFF.

    Anyway, check out his bio and an org he is a part of, the Belmont University Copyright Society. He is a very approachable guy and would probably appreciate an e-mail from our fellow /.'ers.

    Here are the links:
    http://www.belmont.edu/mb/profile.cfm?idno=369 [belmont.edu]

    http://www.belmontcopyright.com/ [belmontcopyright.com]

    http://www.mtsu.edu/~record/facilities.html [mtsu.edu]

    • Re:Nashville Copyright Activists (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I also attended MSTU about ten years ago. An old professor friend of mine, Dr. Marcus Daven, wrote a rather interesting paper on copyright law and it's "catch-22" effect. He argues that existing laws are "cracky" at best, especially with chans. such as HBO and Cinemax dominating the broadcasting market. (or ClearChannel for radio). Hot Laws: Copyright and Broadcasting in the 21st Century [ytmnd.com] by Prof Marcus Daven.

  • Tempest and the tea cup.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @12:00AM (#12097295) Journal
    Lets face it... the RIAA is representing people who have never decreased the cost of purchasing content, despite the fact that producing it has steadily decreased in cost over the years.

    Now they are suing people because they are losing their ability to steal from the masses with impunity.

    MC is *RIGHT* in his stance, but the RIAA and other deserve the sh*tstorm that they are in. They have been stealing from the masses and the artists for decades.

    Digital media has changed the world of content distribution, and the RIAA and Hollywood need to face up to that and get their act straight. Stealing the content from them is not the answer, but if they want to stay in business, they will have to come up with a workable answer, and soon.

    Just taking the argument to court does nothing for their cause (witness one SCO effort).

    Personally, digital rights is taking the same phuqued up route that patents are going. There is more money spent on protection than there is on innovation and customer satisfaction. To me, I hope they are all undone by 'independants' as MC tried to explain.

    Time for the big boys to get with the new game...

    • dates are appox

      1600 we decide that arists actually own their own creations but that it MUST be in the public domain within a short amount of time.

      now - copyright extends to 90 years beyond the death of the author, but is indefinate if produced as a 'work for hire' for a commerial purpose.

      Its black and white. What we perceive as 'normal' protection for copyright holders is rediculous. I don't think ANYBODY wants the abolition of creators' rights, but the parent poster knows that while production costs hav

      • Re:Tempest and the tea cup.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @02:24AM (#12097935) Journal
        I don't think that many people think that copyright holders don't deserve some credit and payola, I just think that mainstream North American industries believe they should get way more than the content is worth.

        Hey, if a vinyl album cost $12, and a CD costs $15, someone is getting cheated, and we all know that cheating is wrong. If I don't want the jeweled CD case, or the funky CD label, or the funny case artwork... how much is the content really worth? How about letting me download it for $5?

        The main point that MC is making is that P2P is not the criminal tool that its being made out to be. Criminals will break copyright law no matter what medium is available. The plain facts are that those instigating the litigation are the ones that are suffering because the general populace is no longer willing to pay over the top costs for content that has not increased in value since the 1600's. At least they claim they are suffering... this has yet to be proven, in court, in fact, in any way at all.

        The articles mentioned, and MC's blog make some very good statements about copyright law, and how big business is working hard (using our dollars) to infringe on our rights to use technology.

        The underlying theme is who gets the money, and how much, not that artist 'X' is being ripped off or that someone is claiming the content of artist 'X' as their own.

        If you and 14 of your friends make a pact to each buy a CD and make copies for each other, then the basic cost of that CD for each of you is about $1.50... or 1/10th of the retail price. This is a breach of the law that cannot practically be prosecuted. Because of technology, the RIAA and others have the opportunity to pick on a small group of individuals who have blatently broken the law. The problem is that they are using this activity to try to bar you and I from using the technology that criminals used, simply because it could happen again.... this is *WAAAAY* wrong.

        Remember also that they are not doing this to protect artists... they are doing this to protect their Italian sports cars, plastic surgery, $5 million homes, and all the other stuff that they have bought with the money that they stole from innocent people, ostensibly very young people.

        With P2P and other technologies, some artists are finding that %100 of the dollars spent for content they created is being delivered to the artist, and not shared out to oh-so-many middlemen in 'the industry' who suck the value out of everything that the artists do (yes, that was a gratuitous and unfair indictment of several industries on a grand scale... and I'm smiling about it)

        The argument, nay.. the fight, is about what technology we can or cannot use and why. MC is right on in this matter. If you want to bring copyrights into this, you also have to look at the value of what is being stolen. Stealing is only stealing when you deprive someone of their property? Someone has to prove that file sharing has hurt the music or motion picture industry before I will believe they are being ripped off by P2P users.

        ?? Can anyone prove this ????

        Meanwhile, all of us have a duty to try to fight the copyright overlords and their hell-bent determination to deprive us of technology.... simply to line their own pockets.
        • "Remember also that they are not doing this to protect artists... they are doing this to protect their Italian sports cars, plastic surgery, $5 million homes, and all the other stuff that they have bought with the money that they stole from innocent people, ostensibly very young people."

          Stole? STOLE? Last I checked, the CEO of Warner Music wasn't climbing through bedroom windows @ 2AM and snatching piggy banks. The company offers a CD at a price. People buy or don't. If they buy, then clearly the CD

  • He's helping fund the fight (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fox_1 ( 128616 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @12:15AM (#12097344)
    he's supporting the legal effort on behalf of Grokster, the online file-sharing network being sued by MGM Studios for allegedly infringing copyrights.

    I still maintain that he's a megalomaniac who loves attention, but I also have to say I don't mind his efforts on behalf of our side of the issues. Besides, if I had been anywhere near as successful as him during the bubble I would be as bad if not worse (and I trip on my ego daily) - so power to him. Good thing though that he's helping fund, and not actually stepping into court himself to do the arguments.

  • King Canute comes to mind (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31, 2005 @12:32AM (#12097424)
    King Canute is the guy who commanded the tide not to come in. His point was that there are some forces that you cannot resist no matter who you are.

    In this case, once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in. The technology exists to swap files easily and anonymously. If they kill the current P2Ps, someone will come up with the next, harder to kill, iteration. The influence of Uncle Sam is waning and even if they can kill P2P in North America, the rest of the world will go on as if nothing happened. India and China are about to become super powers. Brazil is flexing its muscles. In the long run, the RIAA etc. don't stand a chance of stopping the technology. In ten or fifteen years the Grokster decision won't matter outside of the 'States. Basically, America can adapt to the technology it created or become irrelevant. (Just like George W. said the UN had become.)
    • the next, harder to kill iterations are already developed.

      it's just a matter of people starting to use them.. for example, there's bittorrent over i2p(http://www.gotroot.com/article/195 [gotroot.com]). which works, I mean that it really works, the reason why it's not a good alternative for most folks hunting for tv episodes is that there's not enough people on it and sharing. and sure, there's overhead but bandwith is cheap.

      when the riaa and mpaa get too hungry with their lawsuits people will be forced to change, so an

  • RIAA LIES EXPOSE : SALES != "UNITS SHIPPED" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31, 2005 @01:04AM (#12097540)
    The RIAA says music sales are down, more specifically they say sales of the top 100 cd are down and this is DUE TO PIRACY.

    Well by Sales the Mean "Items Shipped to Stores" !

    So all they Really Mean is Stores Stock Less.

    In the US Nielsen Ratings are based on "Individual Sales to Customers" so are these REAL sales down?

    "Soundscan recorded 146 million CDs sold in Q1 2003, against 160 million in Q1 2004 - an increase of nearly 10%. Figures for Q2, released this summer are expected to show yet another increase. The RIAA, on the other hand, are claiming a 7% decrease in revenue - but that's purely through managing shipments and returns."

    Nope, Sales are up !!!
    By this more realistic definition Music Sales are up.

    => Therefore if we are to believe the RIAA but use a more realistic definition of sales then :
    FILE SWAPPING HAS INCREASED POPULAR MUSIC SALES.

    Here is a Link with the sources http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?se ction=distribution&id=1222 [digital-lifestyles.info]

    People listen to more music than they buy.
    The More Music People Listen to, the more they buy.

    ADD in the spectacular rise of iTunes and Music Sales are through the roof.

    File Sharing promotes music and increases sales.

    Artists Win, The RIAA, wins, File Swappers Win, P2P wins - Everyone Wins !!!

    It is about controlling the means of distribution.

    Here is an Very Rigorous Academic Study of File Sharings Effect on Record Sales.
    The Conclusion:"File Sharing Has A Negligable Satistical Effect on Sales".
    http://www.p2pnet.net/zero/FileSharing_March2004.p df [p2pnet.net]
    Here is A Japanese Study with much the same conclusion.
    http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/WP05-08tanaka.pdf [hit-u.ac.jp]
    So the Lies are exposed, the **AA are just out to keep cartel control, make sure we only watch and buy what they have.
    Read How Exhorbitant Liscense Fees for Samples have crippled Modern Music in the excellent fast paced read.
    http://kembrew.com/documents/mcleod-freedomofexpre ssion3.pdf [kembrew.com]
    Freedom Of Expression by Kembrew McLeod also details many other ways in which Irresponsible Litigous Intellectual Property stifles research, innovation, cost millions of lives worldwide due to drug patents and holds back the development of important medicines for breast cancer due to human genome patents.

    I think that P2P has revitalised Culture and learning, it has made the world a richer place and everyone has benefited from this, leechers, artists and business' alike.

  • Where did they get their stats? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mr. Ophidian Jones ( 653797 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @01:18AM (#12097620)
    "90% of files transmitted were copyrighted files."

    Does that percentage include traffic to Canadian computers, where such downloads are legal [cippic.ca]?

    Does that percentage account for people who own the songs they are downloading in some other media format?

    Does that percetage account for people who tried to download a song but got a RIAA-hijacked song instead?

    What a waste of resources. They are playing at a very losing game. Before Napster there was always IRC, usenet, and FTP -- those are still there. After Napster came Morpheus/Grokster, which may/may not be left alive. But already the file sharing community has moved past into DirectConnect hubs, bit torrent, private WASTE networks, etc. Why do they even bother anymore?

  • I take extreme offence to this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gnu-sucks ( 561404 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @06:41AM (#12098651) Journal
    It should be pointed out, in the slashdot quote, that Mark is speaking about Post-Production (video) studios.

    Let me tell you, recording studios (audio) don't want anything to do with the ridiculous shenanigans record labels and the like are pulling on their customers.

    As the middle man in the path between musician and record label, its a tough place to be, but when you consider the creativity involved in a studio, you understand that studio ownership isn't always about money. Money's tough, yes, but we don't care whom it comes from. It could be from a band, the band's parents, their recording contract/label, etc. Doesn't matter. We're here for the music...

  • This one goes a lot deeper than piracy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:41AM (#12099095) Homepage
    Yesterday I was discussing this case with a friend who is a VP at a major broadcast media company based out of Indianapolis. His perspective on the case was chilling:

    Peer to Peer has the potential to eventually make it possible for individuals to run their own broadcast media because it makes the cost of bandwidth trivial. We could be put out of business by hundreds of people running media outlets out of their basements.

    This whole battle never made sense until he explained the major media perpective - they are very afraid of what happens when you are able to bake yur own shows and then stream or podcast them. Right now, most individuals can't afford the bandwidth... but as the newer P2Ps become more popular... the cost of the bandwidth isn't the issue any more. And when anyone can crank out a program... at decent quality... it becomes very hard for large corporations to compete successfully.

    • Ah, someone found out the truth.

      I just can't see how this is a bad thing. If I want to make shows in my basement, and distribute them via the internet, it is none of the big media's business or concern. Last time I checked, they did not have the exclusive right to be the sole broadcasters and media content creators in America. Let's be honest here, shows like Wayne's World or Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood are quite doable for next to no budget in a basement scenario. Their fears are quite justified.

      Maybe they

Slashdot Top Deals

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Close