RIAA vs. hackers WAR?

[Vesayen]

I never really liked pirating software or music......

To be honest I NEVER listen to music, just dosent really interest me, but I would never download it anyway because I thought it was immoral.....

3 months ago I still felt that wat.....

HOWEVER......

The RIAA's conductis so DISRACEFULL that I would have no moral quams at this point downloading pirated music(cept I dont like music heh).

[mrmitchell]

What if by selling those works, you earned a source of income that was taking a hit, perhaps even a severe hit,

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention. If anything, pirating generates sales. Were it not for P2P, I would have no access to music aside from the few times a day I get away from my computer, and I wouldn't've been introduced to a few new bands. Part of the Big Five (RIAA major members) problem is that all their talent has been milked, and now, smaller, better talent from smaller, less-sleazy labels is getting through and they can't help that the grass is greener in the smaller lawn.

Without the internet, I wouldn't've been introduced to that talent, and I probably wouldn't've bought ANY of it, small label or big, at all.

Also, it's fair enough to say that a lot of music downloaders would not have bought the CD anyways. So it's like cheap marketing for the industry when 500 guys that wouldn't have had it are telling other people that it's good.

In layman's terms, the industry is full of greedy jackasses.

[Whaleboy]

What if by selling those works, you earned a source of income that was taking a hit, perhaps even a severe hit

As well as what mrmitchell said, its just business, dynamics of the market, affecting the pool of potential consumers (not walking into a shop and stealing a cd), are what businesses have to either cope with, or be killed by.

[gunkulator]

So following the logic that copying a thing and giving it away is not stealing, the following must also be OK:

1) Giving away a free version Windows or another of piece of software.
2) Scanning and sending out copies of Harry Potter or any other book.
3) Videotaping a movie and putting it online for all to see.

Presumably this won't hurt a soul and any lost revenue can more than be made up for by, say, J.K. Rowling going on tour and reading her book aloud for an audience - huge market potential there, right? The guys who write the Oxford English Dictionary may be a bit hardpressed, though. And hey, who wouldn't like to see a live version of The Matrix? Surely, that would be a cinch to pull off.

Noone likes the stealing analogy because apparently, stealing must involve a physical thing. How about this then: I copy the movie tickets you just bought and use them to get into the movie. Nothing wrong there because I haven't actually "stolen" anything. Oh, and I'll make the grandiose claim that I wouldn't have gone without the freebie so no lost sales. According to the new model, if I liked the movie I drop off a couple bucks at the end or something.

[Whaleboy]

1) Giving away a free version Windows or another of piece of software.
2) Scanning and sending out copies of Harry Potter or any other book.
3) Videotaping a movie and putting it online for all to see

Yes, yes and yes (although practically, those wont be major concerns for years). The publishing industry has been living on borrowed time since the renaissance. As soon as there is a means of separating information for the method of deployment (books, tapes, cds etc), then the information essentially becomes subject to the laws of economics in computing.

While materialistically, the actual media are finite resources, in IT, resources like disk, bandwidth etc, are perceived, for all intents and purposes as infinite resources.

This is of course something the publishing and recording industries have to cope with, no doubt they can, as physical media-based stuff has a number of advantages, and of course, record companies make much of their money through selling merchandise anyway!!

So, yes, stealing, by definition, involves either a physical thing, or a private thing (only in private domain (like my desk or my harddisk), not released in public, public display or public availability. Stealing therefore, does no apply to music which is released to the public.

It needn't hurt a soul if the record companies are willing to adapt to it, for example, selling reduced-price cds with merchandise, or offering streaming media that you pay for, and even embracing the file sharing ideology, possibly by selling a p2p system that is superior to the free ones (although the OSS hackers will have something to say about that ).

[Soul Survivor]

there are already tons of books online (not scanned but typed out) and its the same thing with cds..... i could just print out the pages from the book, but if it is good i would rather own it for myself

[Whaleboy]

do you mean project gutenberg?

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by elijah

then the information essentially becomes subject to the laws of economics in computing.

Computing and networking for distribution do not live in a vacuum. The same technology that allows you to find a thing and copy it, allows law enforcement to watch you do it. A good hacker may stay one step ahead, but the arms race will none-the-less claim victims. Basically you are sacreficing your privacy for access to information. The part that is disturbing to me is that innocent bystanders have to put up with more and more draconian rules and less and less privacy because a few bad apples are getting their kicks thumbing their noses at big corporations.

So, yes, stealing, by definition, involves either a physical thing, or a private thing (only in private domain (like my desk or my harddisk), not released in public, public display or public availability. Stealing therefore, does no apply to music which is released to the public.

You are misusing the term "release to the public." When Chevy releases the new S-10 to the public it means a different thing than when the new version of Kazaa is released to the public.

In any case, I can claim that stealing a 5 cent piece of bubblegum is such a vanishingly small loss as to be practically zero. Best of all, I'm not likely to get caught. And oh, I wouldn't have bought the gum If I had to pay so I was never a potential customer. Still OK? The physicallity of a thing seems secondary to the ease in which a thing can be taken.

It needn't hurt a soul if the record companies are willing to adapt to it, for example, selling reduced-price cds with merchandise, or offering streaming media that you pay for, and even embracing the file sharing ideology, possibly by selling a p2p system that is superior to the free ones (although the OSS hackers will have something to say about that ).

No, I suspect the opposite. They will embrace encryption, specialized players and the equivalent of click through licenses to make listening to music akin to signing a contract. Contract law is harder to argue yourself out of if you were a willing partner. Meanwhile, TPTB will continue to lobby the gov't for less privacy and more open-ended auditing.

Maybe the so-called underground of free music will flourish and we can all enjoy not paying a cent for an artist's blood, sweat and tears. Regardless of the fairness of that, if the free music world fails, I think we can all expect to see a lot more of big brother on our computer and in our lives.

[Soul Survivor]

bah! people still don't understand.... its the record companies that lose 90% of the money not the artists

yes its stealing, but you can't compare it to stealing candy. by downloading the song you're not making it impossible for someone else to buy it, if you steal a candy bar its a direct loss because no one else will be able to buy that candy bar - and thus the store which paid for the candy bar loses the money they spent on the candy bar plus what they would have gotten by selling it.

with music its different, by downloading it the record companies take no direct loss, they did not lose x dollars the moment you downloaded the song, nor have you removed all possibility that that song will be sold again.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Soul Survivor

yes its stealing, but you can't compare it to stealing candy. by downloading the song you're not making it impossible for someone else to buy it, if you steal a candy bar its a direct loss because no one else will be able to buy that candy bar - and thus the store which paid for the candy bar loses the money they spent on the candy bar plus what they would have gotten by selling it.

Yes, but having working in retail, let me assure you that stores never expect to sell everything. In fact, you want your store to have a "full" look. Much of a store's merchandise is simply sent back unsold. This is especially true of food items, items with limited shelf life or items that you choose to no longer sell.

Again I will point out that most thieves a) would not buy the item anyway and b) are merely reducing by 1 the number of items that get returned.

nor have you removed all possibility that that song will be sold again.

But you've greatly reduced the chance of another sale. At some point critical mass is achieved when people's access to file sharing will make music sales almost non-existance. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pekka
One of the very corner stones of defending CDs high prices back in the day was that it's better technology and that the prices will drop. It was promised, that because of the producing is basically not that tough, and it doesn't cost that much to produce CDs as in copying CDs, that it will ultimately drop, the price that is. It was supposed to happen in few years. The prices has only gotten higher. How is this possible?

Good point.

When you look at VCDs and DVDs, they have been dropping in prices, while music CDs have been going up in price.

Some may argue that VCDs/DVDs are just a secondary market for movies, they are right. Consider that, however, movies are a whole lot more expensive to make than an album - Jackie Chan is now at US$25m, and he's not the most expensive. I don't think it takes 25m, or even 5m, to make an album. Sure, there's advertising costs, but so do films.

Consumers are not blind and stupid. They know who are ripping them off.

[Pekka]

YEs cunsomers know waht happens.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pekka
Then they need to attack companies that makes mp3players. They make money and benefit from 'illegal' activities the most, and they know it. The exploit the situation. All these folks, they are making big business, so maybe that's why RIAA is not so quick to attack.

They can't attack the MP3 player makers. There's nothing wrong with the devices themselves, just like VCRs and DVD players. They are all legitimate.

[Pekka]

they lagimate, but they exploit illegal. So, hypocrite.

[Seeker]

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/article.../06282003a.php

hmm looks like the idea of targeting a couple 'high-profile' users won't work after all.

I guess the RIAA will just have to arrest 10s of millions of Americans, not to mention overseas.

How about we just call all our major cities 'prisons', get arrested, and serve our time in special 'suburban incarceration units'?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gunkulator
So following the logic that copying a thing and giving it away is not stealing, the following must also be OK:

1) Giving away a free version Windows or another of piece of software.
2) Scanning and sending out copies of Harry Potter or any other book.
3) Videotaping a movie and putting it online for all to see.

That's correct. None of these is stealing per se.

Originally posted by gunkulator
The guys who write the Oxford English Dictionary may be a bit hardpressed, though.

The OED is online. Don't you know that? You see, there are people who use new technology to modify their business models, and there are those who don't.

For the umpteenth time, the difference is RIAA is just a middleman, dispite its power and wealth. Unfortunately for them, the Internet is very good at getting rid of the middleman, so it is a fight they will not win.

Originally posted by gunkulator
Noone likes the stealing analogy because apparently, stealing must involve a physical thing. How about this then: I copy the movie tickets you just bought and use them to get into the movie. Nothing wrong there because I haven't actually "stolen" anything. Oh, and I'll make the grandiose claim that I wouldn't have gone without the freebie so no lost sales. According to the new model, if I liked the movie I drop off a couple bucks at the end or something.

Some people should understand examples a bit more thoroughly first.

[Pekka]

yes gunkulator, good points but try harder fellow!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Yes, but having working in retail, let me assure you that stores never expect to sell everything.

And?

If a thief an item from a store, that's an item the store will not be able to ultimately sell or return.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
As soon as there is a means of separating information for the method of deployment (books, tapes, cds etc), then the information essentially becomes subject to the laws of economics in computing.

But I hate e-books.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I never really liked pirating software or music......

To be honest I NEVER listen to music, just dosent really interest me,

You're nothing but a no-good, low-down, rotten-to-the-core commie, aren't you ?
NO! Worse than that.
Worse even than a no-good, low-down, rotten-to-the core commie.
You're horrendous. Horrific. Horrifying.

You make me sick.

[Kassiopeia]

But you've greatly reduced the chance of another sale. At some point critical mass is achieved when people's access to file sharing will make music sales almost non-existance. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

Music industry can then move onto making the CDs worth buying. Lowering prices, adding "bells and whistles" like the online vault the Metallica had with St. Anger, recordings of concerts. Instead of a 20 dollar CD that has one listenable song for the sake of selling the album, and the rest being filler. Also, I have faith that people who like the art and want to support it will give the artist what they think they deserve.

The future might see a change in art culture where things are more like what I just described. Music will be considered a free commodity, like a person with a fiddle in the corner of the street who gets paid by the ones who like what they hear and want to help the guy out. It won't be as lucrative for the record industry or necessarily even the artists themselves, but I do believe the artistic value and quality of the music won't change. Actually, when people do music for the sake of music, there might even be more soul in it. In this future, a person who has a knack for composing can do their songs on a quite inexpensive computer, disseminate the songs on the Internet and see what happens. Heck, he can even make CDs himself. I don't think the CD or equals as a medium will completely die, but their significance will drop.

[Seeker]

"But I hate e-books"

this is an interesting thing. With high-speed connections, books and film should be streamlined.

But we still go to the video store/bookstore/movie theatre a lot more than we go to the Music Store.

Why?

Books can be downloaded cheap as pdfs. There are non-glare monitors. But we like the 'feel' of books, turning pages, etc. I have downloaded 'illegal' pdf books, but I never read them. Real books are just better, plus the bookstore experience of seeing and touching 'what's out there'.

Same with the video store. The video store is a good excuse to get the family out of the house and do something together. It's an experience, going in there. And film is even more resistant, we could just wait for the video, but most people like the experience of watching with lots of other people in the Big Dark Room.

But music stores don't have the 'feel'. They tend to feel like inner city american high schools with all the security, and all the crap music, and never having hardly anything I want. And it is not a 'communal experience'. It is individual, more than video film or books.

I believe that the video rental industry will contract a lot though. You're not going to see a whole shelf of some summer blockbuster new release.

They're going to be smaller, with more variety, and more hard to find find movies or movies you haven't heard of and can't just search for and download because you don't know what they're about.

I think film and books will not be affected too much.

[Kassiopeia]

But music stores don't have the 'feel'. They tend to feel like inner city american high schools with all the security, and all the crap music, and never having hardly anything I want. And it is not a 'communal experience'. It is individual, more than video film or books.

Leaning on my earlier post, I think some will enjoy the thought of getting a true CD of the artist they appreciate, the same way people like to get their favourite films on DVD and their favourite books in dead-tree format. I personally read most of my books from the screen (it's that or hunt down the English versions of the books from libraries) but do appreciate if I can get one in real paper without the fuss of ordering it from a library on the other side of the country.

[mrmitchell]

I'll make the grandiose claim that I wouldn't have gone without the freebie so no lost sales.

You act as though we were not speaking in full truth when we said we wouldn't have bought it anyways. Do you not trust us, O Gunk, Seer of All Falsehoods?

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is not the actual situation - it is the image painted by RIAA, but it is not what's happening.

Note that I never said "music" or "RIAA" in my little turnabout, because I'm trying to separate the specific case from the general description. And you didn't really answer my question: what if it were your stuff? Your music, your short-story, your computer program, your artwork, what have you?

The Templar had a better counter-point to this, in bringing up whether the rights can be enforced. Unfortunately, RIAA has shown it's willing & able to go after individual file-sharers, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Pretty hard to argue fair-use when you've got x-hundred MP3s available for distribution on a public network without the copyright holders' consent.

You can argue that you have lost potential sales, but you cannot show that without people downloading the MP3, they will by the CD's. The numbers, be it 10 billion or 100 billion, are just absurd numbers that's pulled out of somebody's rectum.

I agree with this; RIAA has done a terrible job stating their case, by attempting to tie their flagging sales to the file-sharing boogeyman with a bunch of phony numbers.

Similar successes can be found in shareware, with WinZip, ACDSee and Paint Shop Pro being famous examples.

Yes; all works that are being distributed in their shareware versions with the express authorization of the copyright holders. It's a model that's worked very well for them, and can work for musicians as well. RIAA's total failure to grasp this is why I do believe they'll be effectively dead in 10 years, perhaps longer if the industry's inertia takes longer to overcome.

What's the big picture?

Unauthorized distribution of copryighted works = violation of copyright law = actionable in a court of law. Just because RIAA has been completely brain-dead in their public relations handling of the file-sharing era, it doesn't change the laws of the land.

Ultimately those laws may have to be (probably will have to be) changed to fit the times, but it'll be a real tough thing to figure out the dividing line between "ah, it's just x people sharing y files, it's OK" and "this is a clear violation of the law and the perpetrators must be brought to justice." I think this gets back to one of the earlier points in this thread; the final solution for file-sharing versus copyright holders is going to have to be played out in the legal arena, and the attitudes of many file-sharers ("Screw the rich guys! I wouldn't have bought it anyway! It's only one copy!") don't help their case.

For the record, I'm not squeaky-clean in this anyway. I've got, I dunno, maybe a hundred or two MP3s that I didn't legally acquire, still a few odd pirated pieces of software too. But I do understand that I'm not in the right on those, legally speaking anyway. (Though I do also believe RIAA should be busted at some point for tied-selling, if they're going to continue to insist that each song is a product on its own while for the most part refusing to sell songs on an individual basis.)

[Kassiopeia]

There's something else in this affair that interests me as well. The Finnish equivalent of RIAA has managed to impose a tax on blank CDs. A percentage of the price of a CD I buy from a store goes to this association, since it's "likely" that the CD "might" be used to store illegally acquired data. If I'm paying for this data already in the form of this tax, then why should I not take full advantage of what I've already paid for? We aren't imposing extra payments on any other devices on the basis that they could be used for crimes (read: pretty much anything in existence), are we?

You can ask for a refund of this extra payment, but the CDs must go to a registered company in order to do so. Because of this, many private users in Finland are ordering their blank CDs from other countries in the European Union, mainly Germany. A tax on hard disk drives was even suggested at one point, but I haven't heard of it being implemented.

Not to mention the same association planning on slapping charges on daycare centres and churches for "unlicensed public broadcasting of copyrighted works" like songs for children. The PR storm against them was enough to stop them from implementing these ideas.

[Az]

Every time I hear this, my heart drops. This is so wrong.

[Dis]

I was going to create a new thread, but I'll ask it here.

I'm getting a bit scared to use Kazaa now. I don't want to get sued. They are going after the people that are sharing the most songs. Right now I'm only sharing 30 or so songs, but that still seems like a lot.

I've heard there are other ways to get songs that don't involve peer to peer services. How does that work? And I know there are IP blockers, but can you still use a P2P with those one? How can I mask my activities from the RIAA?

[Pekka]

Well perhaps the best way is via FTP. People set up ftp sites, and host their own stuff. It is straight connection between you and the site, so there are no others slowing down your DLs. The down side is, that you have to find these FTP sites first. You need to know the IP, port, login and password, so you can connect these sites. And that happens when the site owner gives you them, and then you have rights do download. There are sometimes ratios, for example 1:3, meaning you upload something and then you get to download three times of the data you uploaded. Down sides are that sometimes these sites are slow, and with poor collection.

But if you get some good ones, it's great because they're FAST (talkign about 100mbit or more), hundreds of gigabytes of mp3s. It's pretty safe, and if you find a place that hosts the music you like and you get free ratios, meaning you can just leech, it's nice.

Then there are big sites, that are fast but they're hard to find and you're likely not going to get rights to use it if no one knows you, but they're good because they have appx little over 200 albums (NEW) released every single day.

[Az]

I'm getting a bit scared to use Kazaa now. I don't want to get sued. They are going after the people that are sharing the most songs. Right now I'm only sharing 30 or so songs, but that still seems like a lot.

If you're such a chickenshit, putyourself behind a high-anonymity proxy, and keep on sharing.