news flash: kids pay big bucks for song theft. lady freedom smiles

The BBQ Pit
21

There are two different issues here. The one is going after Kazaa and the other file sharing systems, either legally or technologically. The other is going after the individuals that distribute copyrighted materials on the various systems.

The record industry was recently handed a big loss in the ruling that they couldn’t shut down Kazaa or the other systems because they were merely the carriers of the copyrighted material and had no control over it. The industry is trying to develop and get legal authority to use technology that would effectively bring down file sharing systems, but that is some time in the future.

What this round of settlements shows is that they are taking to heart the legal ruling in the Kazaa case, which said that Kazaa is just the carrier and the individual users were doing the piracy out of Kazaa’s control. From that it logically follows that the way to go is to chase after the individuals.

It’s a retail method of attacking file sharing, going after the individuals, rather than the wholesale method of going after the systems. However, it has the advantage that finding the file sharers liable is essentially a slam dunk.

If someone has copyrighted material that they are offering for distribution without authority of the copyright holder, then they’re in violation of the copyright laws and liable for civil damages (and possibly criminal prosecution). Yes it is fairly expensive for the record companies to sue the individuals, particularly in the first series of cases, but as these actions get more established, each will get cheaper. In addition, by starting after the biggest offenders, the possibility of substantial recoveries or settlements is there. It’s sort of hard to generate much sympathy for people who have thousands of ripped songs available to the world being chased down by the owners of the copyrights of the songs.

If the individual enforcement of the copyright laws by the record companies gets rolling, people will quite rightly be inhibited from offering copyrighted materials for fear of legal action. Once it becomes known that the record companies are suing people that distribute copyrighted materials, a simple cease and desist letter or e-mail will suffice to get the materials removed in most cases. Yes, the will be individuals who slip under the radar screens of the record companies, but serious enforcement will cut down widespread and rampant internet file sharing.

All in all, it seems a shift in stragegy that is likely to have long-term results. In addition, those who are defending file sharing by saying that it is used for public domain materials will be free to use it for such.

22

The biggest difference is that radio stations are controlled. The problem with things like Kazza and internet radio is that they could introduce new talent outside of the RIAA’s control.

23

I would have thought that the biggest differences are that:

a) the radio stations pay to play what they play, and that
b) the single tape copy you make from the radio has nothing like the quality or distribution potential of a near-CD quality mp3 shared on a network with global reach and thousands upon thousands of users.

YMMV, of course.

24

All this persecuting will be great until they come up with better encryption and privacy. Don’t think for a moment that the RIAAs attempts to strongarm the law into allowing their outdated and outmoded business model continue to make money without having to change or respond to the market will ever get ahead of the brightest most innovative minds in the world using technology to do perhaps one of the best things it can- spread information.

And then I want to ask you what is “promoting the progress of the useful arts”, an industry that works its hardest to stifle innovation, or a bunch of kids that are writing the kind of interesting and innovative code that is revolutionizing computing- all for no particular reward?

25

I don’t feel much sympathy for people who are deliberately avoiding having to buy music.

I have a co-worker who is really big on downloading music. REALLY into it. Just the other day I told him enthusiastically about Apple’s Music store, and how much I’ve enjoyed browsing through it and buying stuff. (It’s only available for Macs now, but will branch out to Windows users eventually.) My co-worker friend wasn’t interested. He scoffed, “I don’t want to pay for it.”

I think it’s one thing to download some music in order to “preview” it before you buy (and I believe a lot of people do this). It’s another to download it because you are loathe to pay even a dime for music. That isn’t right.

I also agree, what the RIAA hopes to do, (scan your computer and mess with it if it has “suspect” files) is pure evil.

26

Hey everyone look!!! It’s a fresh new AssHat who has an oversized sense of entitlement.

27

Them’s some fairly loaded questions, even sven. Firstly, have you not noticed all the online distribution systems the record labels are playing with? No, they’re not coming out fast, because they’re waiting til the technology is right. In the meantime, they’re using the law to try and stop people nicking everything they’ve ever produced. Some of the ways in which they are doing this are fine, e.g. prosecuting individuals as above, some of them are not, e.g. bludgeoning schools and ISPs and trying to legislate what types of software are allowed.

No, they’re never going to completely stop filesharing, nor do I think they expect to. What they have to do is make it perfectly clear that it’s not okay, and try and stem the flood until they have an online service that will compete in its own right, which indeed they will. Personally, I can’t wait til I can get my hands on the sort of subscription service I suggested above.

Well, this is more loaded than a texan’s gun cabinet. Firstly, the innovation stifling bit. Averse as I am to smilies, this really deserves a rolleyes. Are you that dissatisfied with the music available? How on earth are they stifling innovation? If innovation is stifled, how on earth did Miles Davis ever get a record deal? Bob Dylan surely never went electric, and I must have imagined Radiohead moving into ever weirder territory. Independent record labels? Must be a myth. Tom Waits certainly must be a figment of my imagination. The bottom line is, no record label ever stopped a decent band getting published. They may have rejected them, but that’s not exactly the same thing, is it? Your perceptions of a shady industry out to suppress decent music for no clear purpose is utterly at odds with the market - fundamentally, if something is good and/or people want to listen to it, someone will publish it.

To answer the “bunch of kids” bit, I’d ask you this; how is it “promoting the progress of the useful arts” to force artists to give away their art for free? I don’t know about you, but I’d certainly think twice about my career choice if I spent a year making an album and then everyone nicked it. It’s been noted above that attempts to sue the software writers is failing. This is as it should be, assuming the networks aren’t actively complicit in the theft, as Napster was.

In short, I would like both the ability to write software without onerous restrictions, and the ability for musicians to make money from their art and not have it stolen. I see no reason why the two should be mutually exclusive.

28

Myself, I (may) have a handful of songs on my computer that might be considered “pirated”. I would have happily paid for them, but they are very, very obscure tunes. Some of the production companies that made these tunes may be defunct and who knows who has the rights. The original albums are unavailable, at least to my searches.

This is what’s bugging me about the music industry, not only are they resisting digital tecnology like the worst luddite in the world, but they’ve allowed things to fall out in dribs and drabs.

Apple, for example, has started a high profile music buying site. I’d love to pay for the tunes in question (and maybe get new, better versions while I’m at it.) But they’ve got a mere 200,000 songs on file. That sounds big, but its nothing, a drop in the bucket when you look a the history of music.

Before I muster any sympathy for the music industry, I’d say they had better come up with a viable alterantive. Apple music store is a start, but not a very big one.

29

Lessee:

Bill H. sez: “Take the schools they attend to court as well and take a bunch of their money.[…] every school that currently hates kazaa on their networks will grow to REALLY HATE kazaa on their networks.”

Dude, every school that has any filesharing going on hates it. (and believe me, kazaa isn’t the worst of it). Schools have to manage and (usually) pay for their bandwidth. Having a dozen weenies download the latest Vin Diesel movie over their T1 does not repeat not make any educational institute happy. It is however beyond their ability to control, lest they withdraw unmonitored (and by that I mean not actually having someone stand behind them all the time) internet from their students. And payment to an over-rich mafiaesque middleman organization by already financially troubled schools doesn’t seem like a solution to anything to me.

So basically, I’m reiterating my earlier question: “how do you think having schools be liable for anything is a good thing?” Not that you have to answer, as this is the Pit, not GQ, but I’d really like to know.

30

Do you honestly believe that this issue is more important than whether a few thousand kids recieve the education they could?

31

What do you mean by technology base? All you need is a place to download the client program, which can be mirrored at hundreds of private sites. The master node list doesn’t have to be centralized; users can find node lists on IRC, private FTP sites, and other low-key meeting grounds, then discover other nodes through the P2P network (as on Gnutella).

Yes, but those nodes (SuperNodes) aren’t run by Kazaa - they’re regular users whose client programs have decided that they have enough bandwidth and CPU power to act as a search proxy. If you shut down one node, another one appears somewhere else, like Agent Smith jumping between bodies.

32

Payton’s Servant: How the hell does not wanting RIAA hacking into your computer mean you’re an “AssHat [with] an oversized sense of entitlement”? Did you even read the articles? If so, you must have missed this part: “An RIAA-drafted amendment…would immunize all copyright holders…for any data losses caused by their hacking efforts”. Or do only asshats care about someone legally hacking into their computer without any liability for anything?

33

Actually from what I have seen schools generally are able to control that. It depends, but they can do things like block the ports the programs use and cap individual users that bog down the network.

Thats just what I have seen schools do though.

34

All one needs to do is look at the war on drugs which is fought by the government on national, state and local levels with very limited success. They push down on one drug, one area or manufacturer and five more spring up virtually overnight. The RIAA is in this, by and large, by itself fighting it solely on a civil level.

35

When will people learn not to use the terms “thieves”, “theft”, or “steal” in connection to file sharing? Downloading music is NOT theft, hence why we had to involve AN ENTIRELY SEPERATE CLASS OF CRIME to accomodate it. Theft would imply that it in any way deprived the owners of the use of their property, or the money that could be obtained for it. Does it? Of course not. Calling the downloading of music theft is legally wrong, factually wrong, and completely misses the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT. I trust you guys have learned your lesson? Good. Go forth and sin no more.

36

I find it disturbing that a private group is pushing for the right to selectively enforce laws that protect their own interests. Law enforcement should be done by (theoretically) unbiased governmental organizations, not by a private militia looking out for themselves.

37

Alereon, I think you have it backwards: I thought the point was that copying someone’s work was a form of theft that was not covered by the obvious physical laws, therefore a whole new law was created, defining a new type of theft. However, IANAL, and am perfectly willing to be corrected on this point.

Regardless of the semantic nits that are ripe for the picking, I believe it is you who misses the “ENTIRE FUCKING POINT”; file sharing copyrighted material is against the law. Does it make it better that it doesn’t come within your narrow definition of “theft”? Perhaps you can come up with a better word to describe obtaining works to which you have no right through illegal means. Until such a time, I’ll carry on using “theft”, thanks all the same.

38

Dead Badger: It is against the law, true, but it is NOT theft. It in no way RESEMBLES theft. The owner of the copyright is not deprived of their work, nor are they deprived of the income they would otherwise generate from that work. Theft is a crime that directly affects an individual in a profoundly negative way. Describing file sharing as theft ascribes a malevolence to the act which is utterly absent. And yes, such a word does already exist to describe this: Copyright Violation.

39

I took courses in the History of American Popular Music, & the History of the Recording Industry at a university in the Nadshville area.

And, this has all happened before.

First, it was the sheet music publishers that fought player piano roll producers.

The, opposition to phonograph records.

Then, opposition to radio.

Then, fighting tape recorders.

Now, the file sharing problems.

The Powers That Be In Music have always, and I do mean always been too stupid to recognise a good thing when they see one.

They have always fought, & usually lose. At lthe very least, they lose money until youngbloods push the old bosses out.

The wheel turns…

40

Mr2001
As I understood it, the idea that only the users are participating as tne nodes on the networks is a myth. I am fairly sure that the author’s point was that there were dedicated computers on the network doing nothing but handling search and connections work. This would be what I mean by the technology base, and address your second point also.