In a long-awaited decision that could have stark repercussions for P2P networks, the United States Supreme Court on Monday gave record labels and movie studios a green light to sue file-sharing services such as Grokster and Morpheus, which maintained they were not responsible for the actions of their users.
Well the web has been going down hill for last 10 years, all the free stuff is going going gone.
P2P can not be stopped.
They can try to shrink it,
but it can not be stopped.
The record labels must have given large “donations” to get the Supreme Court judges make a decision like that.
Who wants to get ripped off buying overprices CDs or get his credit card hijacked using online music stores? The next big thing will be anonymous encrypted filesharing using advanced software such as freenet: http://freenet.sourceforge.net
Where is this nonsense going to end?
This would be similar to publishing companies and authors being able to file suite against libraries claiming, “lost revenue,” because the libraries ‘purchase’ printed works and then “share” them for free.
“Who wants to get ripped off buying overprices CDs or get his credit card hijacked using online music stores? ”
To all the people who use the “overpriced” excuse. Were did you learn how to shop?
As for the latter excuse. Your card number isn’t any safer with an offline merchant.
“The next big thing will be anonymous encrypted filesharing using advanced software such as freenet: http://freenet.sourceforge.net“
Yes, technological faith for what’s basically a social failing.
“This would be similar to publishing companies and authors being able to file suite against libraries claiming, “lost revenue,” because the libraries ‘purchase’ printed works and then “share” them for free.”
No it is not. When a library shares a copy, it on a one to one basis. When P2P shares a copy, it’s on a one to many basis.
Hell using this logic we might as well give the green light to sue MS and all OS makers for providing the software that hosts the P2P software.
After suing the software companies out of existence we can go after intel, AMD and any company that produces cpus, motherboards or computer for providing the hardware platform of choice for lawbreakers everywhere.
This is a scary precident that just been set indeed.
“Well the web has been going down hill for last 10 years, all the free stuff is going going gone.”
Gloom and doom when the free in question is payware for the honest. What’s your prediction with all that free GPL, BSD, creative Commons stuff being released to the web?*
*All being released with the authors permission.
“When a library shares a copy, it on a one to one basis. When P2P shares a copy, it’s on a one to many basis.”
It’s quite common for libraries to order muliple copies of books by certain authors to ensure they cater to their readers.
When you boil it dowm, it’s the EXACT same peocess as P2P, but only much slower.
And when was the last time anyone went into a library and “didn’t” see CDs, Videos and DVDs available for checkout?
Will you get real?
Sharing music is not the same thing as a library.
it is a flat out fact. the only peopel who have the view that you do are the ones who steal the music in teh first place with all your “Untel they lower the price ” crap.
news flash, Music is not food. there is no moral right to music that would allow you to steal it in an over priced market.
When you boil it dowm, it’s the EXACT same peocess as P2P, but only much slower.
No it’s not. They *buy* multiple copies, and pay for *each single copy*, before putting the books up on the library shelves. That is not the case with illegaly downloading music from the web.
“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,” Justice David H. Souter wrote in the majority opinion.
This is not about stopping P2P or file-sharing.
It is about stopping companies advertising their wares in a manner that encourages infringement.
WHAT!!!! are you nuts? because they decide a case against what you see as just and right they are on the take?
news flash, the SCOTUS decides cases based on current law (if the law is unfair, then they need to hear a case on that in order to smack it down)
current US copyright law as passed by congress in 1998 (who were on the take as far as donors to political campaigns and lobbyist trips) file sharing is illegal. the supreme court did not even rule on the fact that it is illegal, they simple said that a software company is legally liable for infringements its users do IF IF IF IF IF they advertise the illegal use as a way to get people to use their software.
similar to a gun company advertising a gun for its ability to murder and its intimidation ability for armed robbery. the gun company would be held liable for any deaths and crimes committed using that product.
So does this mean gun makers are responsible for the illegal actions of their users?
Stop and do a little math to bring it into perspective.
Say 10,000 libraries want the next Danielle Steels novel and all of them order 2 copies each at a cost of $25.00 per copy.
That’s $500K in book sales for the publisher and the author.
Now, say 30 people at each library wait their turn to read the books from each library, for a readership level of 300,000 people.
Potentially, the publishers and auther could claim that those 300,00 people were given access to those copies to read, thus denying the publisher and auther the potential of $7.5 million in revenue.
Think it can’t happen? Think again. The decision outlined in the ruling are paving the road for situations like this. More ridiculous rulings have come out of lesser cases. Look at the legal trends over the last several years and the shape they’re taking.
Libraries and video rental stores, which are legitimate operations, could potentially become targets based on this latest Supreme Court Ruling.
This is all about the money.
if a gun maker advertised their weapons as being good for murder and other violent crimes, the law already says they are liable.
numbers do not make it the same thing.
besides that, libraries have protection because they promote the common good. P2P does not.
In a long-awaited decision, the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday declared photocopier illegal. They can be used to make illegal copies of cd covers from illegal CDs downloaded through P2P networks…
Sure there are parallels to libraries: libraries usually provide photocopiers in their branches, and use photocopiers as a source of revenue (dare I say, they encourage copying). Libraries frequently have long waiting lists for popular materials (dare I say that the waiting lists encourage duplication if you want to use materials for an extended period). The simple fact is that libraries are frequently one-to-many. The only thing which keeps piracy under control is that most of their materials (eg. books, magazines, maps, etc.) are printed and difficult to duplicate. The issue over lost royalties is also a serious one. I’ve even heard of schemes where libraries would pay publishers each time they lend a material. Why, because even a single library system has the potential to strip hundreds of millions (if not billions) in revenue.
> the only peopel who have the view that you do are the ones who steal the music in teh first place
Get off your high horse. I barely even listen to music, never mind have a need to steal it. My main concern with these rulings is that organisations like the RIAA are stealing my freedom for something which I couldn’t care less about.
…they might as well stop the usage of TCP/IP because almost all pirating is done over that. Better sue microsoft and Intel for providing the majority of Operating Systems/Software and Hardware that allows these programs to run and play the content. Sure, they don’t advertise their products use for pirating material, but hey, one could argue that it’s pretty much an unspoken reason for the Average Joe to buy a computer. Point is, I’m not really sure that I’ve seen anywhere where Grokster or Morpheus say (or even hint towards) the fact that they should be used for pirating (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Not that I condone the pirating of material, but to stop these sorts of things is never going to convince those people who never did buy CDs in the first place to start buying them.
On top of that, if these guys put as much money, time and effort into attempting to make P2P into a profitable business model they would probably be making more money again… and here’s proof:
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67986,00.html
I don’t know about you guys (and I realize that it isn’t music related), but I see a nearly FREE way for companies to get some really good market research, and not just stupid questionaires and statistics… real world results. And that’s the best kind of research there is.
Either way, it’s only a matter of time until the Dinosaur dies and the younger more technology friendly management moves in….
“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against P2P”
Em, correct me if i’m wrong, but the US isn’t the whole world… so what if they rule against p2p? let them do what they want in their own country. I don’t live in the states, and use a p2p created in another country, hosted in another country, and sharing with users who are in other countries…
Or does the US ‘own’ the internet ?
you all who support the illegal distribution of music over P2P need to grow up.
“it is a flat out fact. the only peopel who have the view that you do are the ones who steal the music in teh first place with all your “Untel they lower the price ” crap.”
My family and I actually PURCHASE more books than we borrow from our local library.
And at least once a year, we donate a bunch to the library. Some they place on their shelves to others to chek out. Some they place in the, ‘For Sale – 50 Cents Each,” tables.
chalk this up there with software patents, and micheal jacksons ruling. just goes to show you that the entity with the most money really does win. (as far as the ruling goes anyways, i see this having very little effect on actual p2p networks.)
Em, correct me if i’m wrong, but the US isn’t the whole world… so what if they rule against p2p? let them do what they want in their own country. I don’t live in the states, and use a p2p created in another country, hosted in another country, and sharing with users who are in other countries…
I don’t live in the US either, but point is that as soon as the US does something, big chance that something similair will happen in Europe or the rest of the world.
So no, the US is not the world, and yes, we do live in a world where borders are less and less important.
The way I read it, it basically says that only those companies who launch P2P apps that have no other real objective than to let people trade copyrighted material will be held liable. IMHO, that is the way it should be.
Some of you people amaze me. On one hand, you preach against the evils of DRM and some of you even switch operating systems to get away from it. While at the same time, you’re pirating crap on P2P, essentially giving the DRM companies the ammunition they need to lock down content even more. So, in the future, when all of the hardware sold on the market is loaded with policeware, I guess we’ll have you to thank. If you think CDs are over priced, don’t buy them, but don’t steal them either. Either buy them used, or simply do without.
… usually need to pay royalties to the entertainment industry for their activities. Further, music files may be free to have, the contents isn’t yours then; there are rules.
Lorenzo, libraries are protected because of the fact that they do not infringe on copyrights. Someone can get a book from them and photocopy it, but that’s about it. The publishers don’t go after them because they paid for their copy and loan it out to others to read. It’s the same copy, just getting passed around. There is no way that would violate a reasonable copyright standard.
The other thing is that they aren’t going to scream piracy over the libraries because no one would buy it, and you know that. No one in their right mind would get outraged over libraries “stealing” from them because libraries are abiding by the law. They aren’t handing out free copies made with photocopiers and stolen ink/paper (the equivalent of P2P). The publisher got their cut so the public isn’t going to be sympathetic and no politician wants to waste their time going after an institution that is abiding by the law and that the public has nor problem with.
You sound like a hysterial P2P fanboy who’s just trying to justify his indiscriminate copying of other peoples’ works.
Yes it is. There is a limit to how many pages you are legally allowed to copy from a book before it becomes infringement, the same way the a site may have up to a 30 second clip of a song up on their site without needing permission.
Going to the library and photocopying an entire book is in no way different than downloading an album off of a P2P network.
And if you don’t think it happens then you haven’t been to a post secondary campus lately…. publishers are screaming bloody murder about it… they just don’t have the time, money or media that the RIAA does.
All they are doing is accelerating the evolution of true p2p systems but knocking out the services that have a centralized architecture.
In five years they will realize how much they themselves accelerated true peer networking.
umm.. libraries are not the ones that are promoting the use of photocopiers to infringe copyrights. they lend them out. that is it.
You need to realize that what you are doing is wrong and you will stop justifying it with ridiculous positions.
MikeT:
“Lorenzo, libraries are protected because of the fact that they do not infringe on copyrights. Someone can get a book from them and photocopy it, but that’s about it.”
False. When was the last time you visited a library? Here, in the US, many suburban libraries carry CDs, DVDs, and VHS tapes. For example, the one I work at has over 12,000 CDs, and we’re a _small_ library. If it is illegal for me to obtain a CD from Grokster, then it is equally illegal for me to check out the same CD from a local library, rip and burn it. Since the main purpose of a library is to distribute the content for free, the libraries can be held liable under this new SC ruling.
“The publishers don’t go after them because they paid for their copy and loan it out to others to read. It’s the same copy, just getting passed around. There is no way that would violate a reasonable copyright standard.”
Um, accoring to your own argument, a digital copy of a CD on some P2P network also gets “passed around”, since someone would have to buy a CD before it can become available on a particular network. Only in this case, it’s not a library, but some guy on the network.
The analogy between P2P and libraries appears to be correct; libraries, therefore, should also be held liable.
“You sound like a hysterial P2P fanboy who’s just trying to justify his indiscriminate copying of other peoples’ works.”
Insulting your opponents only shows that you either have no case, or you feel it’s too weak.
Except that 99.99% of all libraries will attempt to stop you after reaching a limit. My local libraries cap you at 10 pages per day, and there is an attendant near the copier who makes you sign in to use it.
Many schools are moving to automated billing linked to student ID cards (using smartcards, RFID, etc.) which can be remotely disabled if a student is found violating school library policy. Thus, the student would lose all library privileges for photocopying that 600 page textbook, even if they did compensate the library for the paper and toner.
Even without the cap, a library is NOT violating this US Supreme Court ruling because it does not encourage, advertise, or imply that you can pirate media there. Students just DO it.
If a company were to release and maintain a P2P network and client and offer it to companies and consumers as a software distribution model, network backup storage, iTunes-like media store, or something, and enterprising hackers use it for pirating, then said company is NOT liable, especially if said company honestly did take measures to stop it or discourage it.
For example, Roxio is still in business even though you can use their software to rip music or burn bajillions of bootleg CD’s and DVD’s. That’s because Roxio goes through the motions and tells you that pirating is naughty and you shouldn’t do it nor use their software for it.
–JM
Doubtless most of the posters here can’t be bothered to read the actual decision, but what the Court actually said was that software vendors could be held liable for copyright infringement if they knowingly distributed and marketed their product with the object of encouraging their customers to use the product to steal copyrighted material.
So, if you market something that can be used to infringe copyright, and you encourage your customers to do that just, then you can be held liable.
For those of you who don’t believe in copyright, or believe you have the right to make and distribute unlimited copies of anything you own even if you’ve never acquired that right, then you’ll dislike this decision. In the end, you’re living in a fool’s dreamworld, too.
And, to the moron who posted the first comment whining about nothing being free on the web anymore, the web isn’t about getting free stuff. Go waste your life somewhere else.
“That is not the case with illegaly downloading music from the web.”
Downloading is not illegal in at least the Netherlands and Canada. Uploading copyright protected material without permission of the author(s)’s permission is though. This is important because it means the uploader is the offender; not the downloader.
This whole case doesn’t change anything for these uploaders though. It doesn’t e.g. make it easier to sue them. Therefore it doesn’t become more attractive to use encrypted and/or anonymous P2P services to them. It depends on the next move of the copyright holder’s organisations. IIRC there have been rulings that ‘caching’ data is something different than hosting and given Usenet is a ‘cache’ and not a host (it gets automagically deleted) uploading to Usenet is legal. So why there is a need for encrypted or anonymous P2P networks in regards of that, i’m not so sure.
I suspect this ruling may result that P2P corporations and/or servers move out from the USA to different countries. But the message this case spreads –that programmers and/or service providers are liable to what data their users spread– is very dangerous to freedom of speech. Although if i read her, the problem was that using marketing for material author(s) obviously do not allow to be copied without their permission, is illegal. If that is the case, that makes sense. It also means that –at least to me– this case is overrated.
“Lorenzo, libraries are protected because of the fact that they do not infringe on copyrights. Someone can get a book from them and photocopy it, but that’s about it. The publishers don’t go after them because they paid for their copy and loan it out to others to read.”
At least in the Netherlands, you legally owned that copy when you hired it, and therefore have the right according to law (Thuiskopie) to make a copy of it. Wether you still have the original or not afterwards, doesn’t matter anymore. I don’t know about the USA though.
Libraries have had to fight for their fair use rights, and it’s an ongoing struggle. Librarians are paying close attention to these issues, because we know that rulings can impact libraries too.
Plus dealing with the onerous DRM that electronic resource include is a huge PITA. Licensing for ebooks, audio books and music in electronic format is too. Libraries have to toe the line while trying to provide all the services possible, but laws can change and force them to cut back.
–Recent MLS grad
You need to realize that what you are doing is wrong and you will stop justifying it with ridiculous positions.
And you need to realize that not everyone who disagrees with the RIAA is a pirate.
In the last month I’ve spent approximately $74 including tax on CDs both used and new. I prefer to be able to rip my music and listen to it A) in any format I like and B) anywhere I like. These cases in court only serve to allow record companies to attempt to take those freedoms from me and force DRM on my music and music hardware.
My argument is not to justify the use of P2P networks, it was to try and show that the comparison between the use of libraries and the use of P2P networks was legit. However….
Many schools are moving to automated billing linked to student ID cards (using smartcards, RFID, etc.) which can be remotely disabled if a student is found violating school library policy. Thus, the student would lose all library privileges for photocopying that 600 page textbook, even if they did compensate the library for the paper and toner.
I’ll admit to this, and I suppose this is where the contrast between a P2P network like Grokster and a library shows the most. Of course, this still doesn’t prevent me from going to a library and taking out a DVD or CD, but again they at least go out of their way to say “Don’t copy this CD” and such. As far as I know, although Grokster doesn’t say “Hey, use me for infringement purposes”, it also wouldn’t stop a user from doing it once they found out what the user was in fact doing.
Really good point, I didn’t really think about that.
“Since the main purpose of a library is to distribute the content for free, the libraries can be held liable under this new SC ruling. ”
Actually no it wouldn’t because this ruling is that the company is held liable if and only if they promote using it for illegal activities. Libraries do NOT do that. In fact most P2P companies don’t do that and therefore won’t be affected. Stop this doom and gloom campaign. You’ll still be able to steal music.
This Libraries are the same as P2P arguement is the stupidest arguement that I have heard of yet for allowing stealing of other peoples work.
This summary of the ruling is completely irresponsible and should be changed to reflect the, you know, *ACTUAL RULING*. This is like saying “It’s legal for the police to shoot anyone!” and forgetting to mention the conditional clause “if the anyone in question happens to be shooting at the police.”
“You sound like a hysterial P2P fanboy who’s just trying to justify his indiscriminate copying of other peoples’ works.”
Actually, I don’t use P2P to share/swap files or music.
Not everyone who disagrees with this ruling is a practitioner of the P2P networks or services.
“In the last month I’ve spent approximately $74 including tax on CDs both used and new. I prefer to be able to rip my music and listen to it A) in any format I like and B) anywhere I like. These cases in court only serve to allow record companies to attempt to take those freedoms from me and force DRM on my music and music hardware.”
And most socities have socially sanctioned ways to counter anything like that. However there’s a great number who want to be “ethical sprinters” http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150095&cid=12585044 and take shortcuts, and unfortunately everyone else suffers because of their foolishness.
We’re just back to suqare one again.
The music industry has apparently been give the green light to sue companies and services themselves many, many times over the past few years. Each time it has always been overturned simply because when a case has come up a court has had no option but to throw it out as the services themselves are clearly not responsible for what their users do. If they were all sorts of legal problems arise in many other industries. There has been many examples of that.
That’s the reason why the music companies have had to go after individuals involved, but they’ve obviously found the going tough and extremely difficult legallly. It’s always been much easier for them to sue one entity.
good read. thanks for that.
I’m sick of how these P2P discussions always boil down to mp3 music sharing, DRM and the like.
Personally, I use P2P to get free porn.
Wow. A lot of people haven’t even read the ruling, and are railing against it.
“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against P2P”
That isn’t even remotely correct. The SCOTUS ruled against Grokster and Streamcast. Not against the technology or the concept. And NOT because they provided P2P services. The ruling was against them for OPENLY ENCOURAGING their use for copyright infringement. You can develop and distribute as many P2P clients/systems as you want. As long as you don’t say “Hey, this is a great way for you to download copyrighted materials for free” you’re still in the clear. The ruling isn’t about technology AT ALL. It’s about marketing. At least read the verdict before you freak out.
“they at least go out of their way to say “Don’t copy this CD” and such. As far as I know, although Grokster doesn’t say “Hey, use me for infringement purposes””
Actually, that’s part of the point of the verdict. Grokster were found to have actively encouraged people to use the service to infringe.
It’s another age-related “I know it when I see it” decision. An ambiguous law has been left in place so every question will have to be decided by a judge and reviewed by another. The lawyers won.
Owners of Xerox machines will be held liable for people copying materials using them….
The Supreme Libs just declared local governments can take your house if a buddy will pay more in taxes, so this decision shouldn’t surprise you.
“good read. thanks for that.”
Here’s the Forward. I recommend reading the book.*
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=142268&threshold=-1&comment…
*Irony is finding the Bible on a P2P network.
“Owners of Xerox machines will be held liable for people copying materials using them….”
If Xerox markets their machines as a great way to steal entire books, yeah, yeah they probably will.
Its the _people_ using the machines, not the owners.
If I own a copier, its not up to me to play Dad to everyone who is copying.
Thank God this idiotic notion failed when murder victims wanted to sue gun makers.
Mea culpa regarding the owners of the machines being in any liable. The owners of the machines are different from the developer of the machines. In the case of P2P, I think the ISP’s would be most analogous to the owners of Xerox machines used to photocopy books. Whether or not ISP’s are in any way legally liable however, doesn’t have anything to do wtih this ruling, as far as I know.
And no, gun makers aren’t liable for what people do with their products. Unless, of course, they market their products specifically as a way to break the law.
If Grokster actively encouraged the _people_ to use their service to break the law, they’re partially liable.
I liken it to the US prosecuting Verizon Wireless because Martha Stewart used her cell phone to arrange the stock sales.
It is possible to use P2P in a legal fashion. I don’t recall Grokster saying ‘for illegal file sharing!’.
There is absolutely no way to determine absolutely what is being shared is copyright-restricted at the P2P level. Even if I have a file shared called ‘Crazy Train’, that doesn’t mean its the AC/DC song.
Whats more important, it is not the responsibility of someone providing the service( basically a lookup ) which allows users to find each other to enforce this.
I can use the phonebook to tell my Mafia buddies from which warehouse to collect my protection money, but the phone company isn’t liable.
I am all for protecting property rights, but not by allowing private entities to control commerce channels related to such.
Multiple copies of books? One book for one person, what the HELL library do you guys visit??!
The library I use buys copies of books and loans them to many people, allowing the distribution of a single copyright work to many readers. Hence denying revenue to the publisher, just like p2p BUT it’s not like P2P for two reasons:
1) It’s socially acceptable, therefore legal, because it’s beneficial to publishers through years of arrangement and agreement.
2) Libraries preceeded todays corporate forces, which dominate and dictate our current laws and social structures.
Part of (1) is to do with publishers realising that their works benefit those who cannot afford them, who are financially (and therefore socially) less well off.
Having said all that, libraries do have arrangements with some music distribution channels, before p2p many students used to use the library to find new music and record it to tape. So actually, in a way they do “facilitate” copyright imfringement in exactly the same way as p2p.
To be honest, I think global corporations are not concerned in the least about the social benefits of their products or services to those who cannot afford them. They see only potential sales when they look down from their zillion dollar HQs. They see and need volume sales, to this end they need to nail down the p2p networks now before they do become socially accepted, before the tipping point.
It’s a shame the law no longer protects those for whom it is written, the people. If it were then this whole debarcle could be twisted back on the corporates by consumers, afterall, Sony sold me a CDRW which is clearly a copyright circumvention device…..it says on the box I can “create music CDs” so it has some legitimate purpose sure, but only for musicians and royalty free recordings.
Ok, children, listen up:
If you check out a book from a library you *MUST RETURN THE BOOK* back to the library. You can’t just keep it forever, unlike a music file you get via P2P.
Get it? The library book *IS NOT YOURS TO KEEP* and they *KNOW THAT YOU CHECKED IT OUT* and they *EXPECT IT BACK*.
Completely *UNLIKE* downloading an MP3 via P2P and “reading” the file for as long as you want.
Think. Before. You. Post.
BUT it’s not like P2P for two reasons:
1) It’s socially acceptable, therefore legal, because it’s beneficial to publishers through years of arrangement and agreement.
2) Libraries preceeded todays corporate forces, which dominate and dictate our current laws and social structures.
And it’s also not like P2P because you can’t take a physical copy of a book and reproduce it for free instantaneously, and then share that copy with millions of people around the world. Not only that, but as Rockwell said, you gotta return it eventually.
The way I read it, it basically says that only those companies who launch P2P apps that have no other real objective than to let people trade copyrighted material will be held liable. IMHO, that is the way it should be.
Close but a little off. This should probably read like so:
The way I read it, it basically says that only those companies who launch P2P apps that have no other real objective than to let people infringe on copyrighted material will be held liable. IMHO, that is the way it should be.
There is a very distinct difference that must be pointed out now. Distributing copyrighted materials via p2p is only an issue if you don’t have a license to use it. The GPL for example is a license that doesn’t care. For example transferring the latest ISO’s of Fedora Core 4 on p2p is not infringing on anyones copyright. I think the RIAA has done well to blur this distinction and it is why I try to point it out.
Some of you people amaze me. On one hand, you preach against the evils of DRM and some of you even switch operating systems to get away from it. While at the same time, you’re pirating crap on P2P, essentially giving the DRM companies the ammunition they need to lock down content even more. So, in the future, when all of the hardware sold on the market is loaded with policeware, I guess we’ll have you to thank. If you think CDs are over priced, don’t buy them, but don’t steal them either. Either buy them used, or simply do without.
Some of you people amaze me too! Piracy has always been their scapegoat and the numbers prove that it hasn’t affected sales at all. DRM and the lawsuits are about control, NOT about piracy.
I agree that cd’s are overpried and don’t buy them. I also don’t steal them, but I don’t want my rights trampled on by big business. Especially a convicted felon, remember the Music industry was conviced of price fixing (gouging) their customers. Never did they intend to deliver on their promise of $5 cd’s, and now they won’t have to because piracy is hurting their multibillion dollar business *bullshit*.
Point being, these guys are removing freedoms from everyone and are using Piracy as a scapegoat like the President uses Terrorism to pass freedom removing laws.
There is a huge difference between the property ruling (a 5-4 split) and the Grokster ruling(a 9-0 decision)
go back the yahoo message boards.
Piracy has always been their scapegoat and the numbers prove that it hasn’t affected sales at all. DRM and the lawsuits are about control, NOT about piracy
Well, I think it has a *little* to do with piracy, but it is probably mostly as you say. However, the dumb senators certainly don’t know that. Essentially, if there was no piracy, the entertainment industry would have no excuses. So if everyone were to boycott their products *AND* stopped pirating, what are they gonna do?
Gee, so that “common carrier” thing is just a suggestion, eh?
gg united snakes!
Downloading is not illegal in at least the Netherlands and Canada. Uploading copyright protected material without permission of the author(s)’s permission is though. This is important because it means the uploader is the offender; not the downloader.
Not for long, at least in Canada. Bill C-60 is going to change this. Not only it will be illegal to share, but it will be illegal to circumvent any copy protection, including the ‘shift key’.
I don’t have any shame to say that I share music, like I have no shame to say that I spend more than 70$ per month on music, RIAA/CRIA label or not. If they are stopping me, they are going to be the loser, not me… Like somebody already said, music isn’t food, e.g. not vital. I can live without it, they cannot.
Nice post. Too bad you need to remind these addlebrained teenies about realitiy.
It is worth adding that borrowing a book from a library doesn’t give you the right to make and distribute copies of the book. A lot of moochers like to pretend that right doesn’t exist, that if they have their grubby fingerson something they can do with it as they choose. They’re wrong, of course, but you have to expect that from people who can’t grasp the notion that people can own things they can’t touch or see: the right to determine who gets to make copies of something you create.
No it isnt. They both set precedent and expand the federal governments power. Read Article X of the Constitution and you will understand.
Oh yeah, go back to slashdot.
Imagine musicians poularity adopting P2P to share their music and using performances and subscription to fan sites as a means of Income?
Fuck the RIAA and our ARIA industry leaches. I am pissed off by not being able to purchase a plain vanilla recording on CD and transfere that recording onto a playback device of my choosing. Fair rights are going the way of the Dodo and the bullshit the Industry cites as crippling their income is just pure garbage. They have never had it better, ever since Napster came onto the market there has been steady growth in CD sales. It is about them screwing the consumer for as much as can be got. You now pay for the CD but if you want to play the music on a device like MP3 player, you have top purchase the music again in a MP3 format. They see the potential to lock media down to very restrictive playback licensing so they can make lots of money.
Don’t let them, don’t support the asshole artists who promote their work through this scheme and most of all, turn off MTV and listen to music for a change. You might find that the crap promoted by the industry through video music shows is pretty crappy to actually listen to. There are plenty of artists out there who are producing great audio and there are better ways of obtaining their work than at your local what ever big name audio/video retailer.
This is just the start of the powers at be being on their death throws and trying to screw society for as much as they can before we tell them to piss off and it is in Government as well as entertainment.
“news flash, Music is not food. there is no moral right to music that would allow you to steal it in an over priced market.”
Any mundane worker can sale his product only once and for some more money he has to work again and make a another “replicate”.
And now, where is the moral right to charge for a product (the work done once for a few hours in a recording studio) over and over, for weeks and month and even years … for each “worthless” music-conserve?
Belive an european philosopher (masters degree in philosophy!)… moraly you are wrong and file-sharers are right!
Indeed, music -although not neccessary to survive- has more in common with food, than is has in common with other physical objects (or “luxury”) … music is culture and culture is the bonds between individuals in a society … i.e. music is (part of) an essential neccessity for individuals!
I believe that performing music is hard work, that should have a proper monetary compensation.
But, I also believe a music “replicate” itself is a worthless thing.
The actual value of a music replicate consists of the value of the initial music performance and the added value due to replication. The second part is nearly zero these days.
The combined value then would be antiproportional with the number of replicates … In the case, that the initial work (the performance) already had a monetary compensation, the combined work has zero value.
If you think about sports, you’d probably realize that nearly nobady is interested in sports events from yesterday. The whole buisiness is just about that time it is performed and conserves are rarly of interest in sports.
I don’t think, that revenue in sports-buisiness are much smaller than in the music industry. (I think there is even more money in sports, although I don’t have numbers.)
Wouldn’t it be possible to satisfy the customer with free copy’s of conserves, while earning the money with performing music? It is quite simple just as in sports, make concerts, earn money comercials, make TV-stations pay transmitting for te acts and so on …
“Some of you people amaze me too! Piracy has always been their scapegoat and the numbers prove that it hasn’t affected sales at all. DRM and the lawsuits are about control, NOT about piracy. ”
So far all the “evidence” in question amounts to anecdotal and circumstantial. If I was a scientist submiting this to a peer-reviewed journal. At best it would be rejected.
There’s no requirement that harm be defined as someone smacking you upside the head with a two-by-four. Let alone the absence of harm being a good justification.
“I agree that cd’s are overpried and don’t buy them. I also don’t steal them, but I don’t want my rights trampled on by big business. Especially a convicted felon, remember the Music industry was conviced of price fixing (gouging) their customers. Never did they intend to deliver on their promise of $5 cd’s, and now they won’t have to because piracy is hurting their multibillion dollar business *bullshit*.”
Funny. A concerted effort of the buying public to not have anything to do with the content industries in question* would have been far more effective. Gotten results sooner, and we would still have most of our rights intact.
*And less you all forget. Copyright violations isn’t confined to just music, or movies, or even books.
[ Piers (IP: —.vic.bigpond.net.au)]
“Imagine musicians poularity adopting P2P to share their music and using performances and subscription to fan sites as a means of Income? ”
I can imagine it. I can even support it. As long as everyone keeps in mind that it happens because the artists in question have given their permission. As opposed to the “eminent domain without compensation” that some practice.
if you think about it, the internet was invented to share data.
“And now, where is the moral right to charge for a product (the work done once for a few hours in a recording studio) over and over, for weeks and month and even years … for each “worthless” music-conserve? ”
Moral rights have nothing to do with it. How a person is compensated is for most “work for hires”. Some may get hourly. Some a percentage. Spread out over time, or compressed. People have a right to enter into a legal agreement without interference from those who think they know better. Even if we’re talking about a solitary creater. Legitimate market forces still hold sway, even with copyright in place.
“Belive an european philosopher (masters degree in philosophy!)… moraly you are wrong and file-sharers are right! Indeed, music -although not neccessary to survive- has more in common with food, than is has in common with other physical objects (or “luxury”) … music is culture and culture is the bonds between individuals in a society … i.e. music is (part of) an essential neccessity for individuals! ”
Great! Let them create their own culture instead of trying to dictate to others how “culture” should be dispensed.
“The actual value of a music replicate consists of the value of the initial music performance and the added value due to replication”
Uh, no. Aside from intrinsic value, the market value is what people are willing to pay, be it one original or multiple copies. That’s not the problem that some content providers have. Reciprocal agreements are understood. The problem is those who don’t agree with the terms of that reciprocal agreement instead of just walking away. Choose to procure through unethical (and for some immoral) means what they desire without honoring the terms the honest would abide by.
[unearth (IP: —.stcgpa.adelphia.net)]
“if you think about it, the internet was invented to share data. ”
Your bank account numbers are…?
So far all the “evidence” in question amounts to anecdotal and circumstantial. If I was a scientist submiting this to a peer-reviewed journal. At best it would be rejected.
You could say the same thing on the numbers given by the RIAA…
Funny. A concerted effort of the buying public to not have anything to do with the content industries in question* would have been far more effective. Gotten results sooner, and we would still have most of our rights intact.
Well, it’s not like nobody ever tried. The buying public just don’t care and the music industry knows it.
I am _perfectly_ aware that two wrongs doesn’t make a right, but I believe it’s hard to feel bad for downloading songs after you bought over 250 CDs (and rising). They are not getting all the money, but it’s not like they are deserving it. Maybe their cries would be more legitimate if they were not guilty of price gouging and were giving better royalties to lesser known artists… Of course, your mileage may vary. As for your ‘rights’ (I presume you are talking of ‘fair use’), they would have gotten away anyway, just a bit later.
“I am _perfectly_ aware that two wrongs doesn’t make a right, but I believe it’s hard to feel bad for downloading songs after you bought over 250 CDs (and rising). They are not getting all the money, but it’s not like they are deserving it. Maybe their cries would be more legitimate if they were not guilty of price gouging and were giving better royalties to lesser known artists… Of course, your mileage may vary. ”
The solution there is to start your own company, and offer your talent “equitable” terms.* The fact that I’m not seeing the complainers doing that speaks volumes about the strength of their chosen position.
*Funny how the “new and improved” business model is good enough to recommend to the RIAA/MPAA, but not good enough for the complainers to adopt.
“As for your ‘rights’ (I presume you are talking of ‘fair use’), they would have gotten away anyway, just a bit later.”
And as long as people try to retain their “rights” by relying on technical shortcuts, instead of the much more “like work” steps that centuries past relied on. Then they will continue to lose them and others.
you should look it up on google.
the internet can be used wrongly just like everything else.
i wasnt picking sides on whether it was right or wrong,
just making a point i thought was funny but true.(and sad)
You (as well as Darius) are ignoring the obvious. People dont read the same book every day or two the way they listen to a song. Because of that, once a book is read it has little or no value left to the reader (except in the case of something like an encyclopedia, dictionary, or atlas). In conclusion, the “must be returned to library” is weak at best.
P.S. – rockwell, that comment you made about thinking before you post…you need to take your own advice
The truth is by banning P2P and introducing DRM a company is making an illegal copy of a product not available to a person. By doing so their sales *WILL* not increase because the person still wont have any money to buy the product. SO practically the presence of P2P makes no difference at all because no person in a third world country like Malaysia is going to use the product when it is available for (here M$ Windows XP Home) 80$. Its way too expensive for him. What P2P is doing is making it available to him at a cheaper price through the local pirated software mafia (yes the mafia does download from P2P afterall). If P2P werent there he would probably use Linux and wouldnt increase M$s profit by a cent. You may be getting the point now.
The solution there is to start your own company, and offer your talent “equitable” terms.* The fact that I’m not seeing the complainers doing that speaks volumes about the strength of their chosen position.
Yeah, I should forfeit everything I am doing to start up a company that is just going to be crushed by the giants. What a great idea.
We do have indie labels, but they don’t have the funds nor the distribution power as the ‘Big Five’. Since they are basically holding together and definitely have the means for changing the situation without losing a significant amount of profits, we should expect more from them. This is an issue that started long before media sharing became problematic. Like I said, this is not an excuse for piracy but it’s really hard to feel bad for them.
*Funny how the “new and improved” business model is good enough to recommend to the RIAA/MPAA, but not good enough for the complainers to adopt.
Since I did not recommended it, take back your strawman.
And as long as people try to retain their “rights” by relying on technical shortcuts, instead of the much more “like work” steps that centuries past relied on. Then they will continue to lose them and others.
But we don’t even need this for losing them. The DMCA came way before music piracy was a blimp on the map. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with it. Centuries ago, music was not a product…
“Some of you people amaze me too! Piracy has always been their scapegoat and the numbers prove that it hasn’t affected sales at all. DRM and the lawsuits are about control, NOT about piracy. ”
So far all the “evidence” in question amounts to anecdotal and circumstantial. If I was a scientist submiting this to a peer-reviewed journal. At best it would be rejected.
Uhm I didn’t post any evidence whatsoever in my rant. I left that as an exercise for the reader. Here’s one such link though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4150747.stm