Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the who's-to-blame dept.

Music 367

adeelarshad82 writes "RIAA executives have written a letter to PCMag expressing 'deep disappointment' for publishing an article on Limewire Alternatives. While the article includes a disclaimer from PCMag that it does not condone the download of copyrighted or illegal material, RIAA executives believe that 'PCMag is slyly encouraging people to steal more music.' The letter goes on to ask PCMag to retract the article from their website. PCMag's Editor in Chief has responded to the letter by stating that music industry's charges remain groundless and that it reeks of desperation. He points out that PCMag covers all aspects of technology, which includes the products, services and activities that some groups and individuals might deem objectionable. He defends publishing the article by saying 'We covered these Limewire alternatives because we knew they would be of interest to our readers. We understand that some might use them to illegally download content. We cannot encourage that action, but also cannot stop it. Reporting on the existence of these services does neither.' PCMag has also refused to retract the article."

cancel ×

367 comments

What is limewire? (5, Funny)

DemonicMember (1557097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339260)

In this day and age if your still using limewire or its alternatives for the majority of your music your doing it wrong.

Re:What is limewire? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339280)

You're doing "your" wrong.

Re:What is limewire? (1, Offtopic)

DemonicMember (1557097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339286)

You're correct.

Re:What is limewire? (0, Offtopic)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339322)

It would be safer to stop using contractions.. Do not you think?

Re:What is limewire? (2, Insightful)

DemonicMember (1557097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339340)

I personally would prefer we just stop using grammar. If the intention is clear then does it really matter?

Re:What is limewire? (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339442)

I personally would prefer we just stop using grammar. If the intention is clear then does it really matter?

Yes, yes it does. Intent is not sufficient to assure good communication. The Devil is in the details.

Re:What is limewire? (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339454)

Grammar is like ECC.

Re:What is limewire? (5, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339470)

I personally would prefer we just stop using grammar. If the intention is clear then does it really matter?

I don't know.

From your original post:

...your still using limewire ...

My still is using limewire? Dude, what are you distilling? Some sort of lime tequila?

I kid! I kid!

Re:What is limewire? (3, Funny)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339494)

Wel, akshualii, thiss iz a bout spling, not gramer. Butt I undorstand wie sum pepol dont kair fore standerdiz'd spelingh; Samuel Johnson rilly set uss bak centuryes.

Re:What is limewire? (4, Funny)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339752)

Damn, I am spending too much time with cat macros. I had absolutely no problem reading that at all. It didn't even slow me down.

Re:What is limewire? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339852)

Damn, I am spending too much time with cat macros. I had absolutely no problem reading that at all. It didn't even slow me down.

Longcat and Tacgnol at Tenagra.

Sometimes I wonder just how much of a conversation we could have, using nothing but memes. What was once the least-comprehensible (until the secret was revealed) ST:TNG episode of all time has now become reality.

Re:What is limewire? (4, Funny)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339876)

Ceilingcat, his eyes uncovered.

Re:What is limewire? (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339588)

i cunt see a problem with your logic!

Re:What is limewire? (5, Insightful)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339636)

Obvious bad grammar is something that flags comments as potentially uninformative. If a person gets the "easy to fix" things wrong (e.g. you're, it's, could've), it negatively correlates with the care that person takes to make well-informed statements. If you want to keep using bad grammar, go ahead. Just realise that it will mean your posts are less likely to be read in depth by me.

Re:What is limewire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339848)

Your right its not that hard he should of paid more attention.

Re:What is limewire? (4, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339918)

"Would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split, and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of bar-room vernacular, that is done with the eyes wide open and the mind relaxed but attentive."

Re:What is limewire? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339770)

If the intention is clear then does it really matter?

Short answer: Depends.. Unless I see some humor in it, I'm not going to go around clogging the tubes with complaints about one's occasional mixup..

Re:What is limewire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339642)

It's odd how don't you think is really a contraction for do you not think? or do you think not?, but definitely not, do not you think?

Grammar will always be important, because without it, most context is only viable to a limited few.

Re:What is limewire? (5, Insightful)

Moochman (54872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339670)

Actually LimeWire is great for downloading obscure individual mp3s. This is possible because of the fact that not only the file-sharing itself, but also the search, is peer-to-peer. IMHO this means it is still a better "Napster replacement" than Bittorrent, in the sense that it allows you to explore music rather than simply download it en masse.

Re:What is limewire? (1)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339796)

i cannot believe they missed soulseek!

i have heard it said :P [slsknet.org] it's great for finding those obscure, hard to find single tracks and albums

Re:What is limewire? (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339842)

You know that LimeWire uses flooding to search, right? That is ridiculously inefficient and will often miss obscure files. Anything that uses a Distributed Hash Table would be way better.

we are interested in destroying the RIAA (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339854)

not just proclaiming our geek cred by poopooing poor p2p client choices

therefore, we need slashdot wisdom on THE filesharing client to use, for those reading this who are not in the know, and to generally get to know what everyone else is doing

thusly:

1. eMule for hard to get and nonessential downloads

2. bittorrent for easy pop stuff. use the Opera internet browser as a bittorrent client

disagree with what i just wrote?

then respond, with your own pointers to expand on our group wisdom

PCMag (4, Interesting)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339270)

I'll have to check out PCMag and see if it's worth subscribing to.

Re:PCMag (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339534)

I'll have to check out PCMag and see if it's worth subscribing to.

It's not.

Re:PCMag (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339630)

or do you mean "it isn't"

Re:PCMag (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339704)

You're an ass sniffer. Like that ass, do you? Like the smell of ass? Can't get enough gas?

Re:PCMag (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339832)

It used to be

Re:PCMag (2, Informative)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339540)

It's not.

Re:PCMag (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339646)

It's not.

What is that running down your lip? You may think it's funny but it's not.

Re:PCMag (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339598)

just because a company does one thing right does not = they've turned over a new leaf.

PCMag has generally been shit, that hasn't changed.

Re:PCMag (3, Insightful)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339600)

just get a torrent of it

Re:PCMag (2, Interesting)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339658)

Actually I wouldn't mind a torrent of their print archives (along with other Ziff-Davis publications like Windows Sources, PC Computing, and especially the big ol' Computer Shopper). It provides a unique view of the computing industry you simply can't find on the internet, plus the ads would be amusing.

Re:PCMag (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339784)

Not quite what you asked for, but I imagine you'll like this [modernmechanix.com] .

Re:PCMag (2, Informative)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339804)

what ......like this?LOL [demonoid.com]

membership of that site required tho ;)

Shouldn't they be happy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339282)

More illegal downloading = more lawsuits = more profit for the RIAA. They make more from someone who is forced to settle than they make from someone who buys the song on iTunes.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (5, Informative)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339320)

More illegal downloading = more lawsuits = more profit for the RIAA.

It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits. 2009 sales were off more than 67% compared to 2000. EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.

Yeah, this "everyone is a pirate" angle is pulling in the big bucks, isn't it?

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339392)

It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits

I've heard a lot of different takes on that. Some attorneys I've talked to about it the say quite the opposite, that given the way their scheme worked, the probably turned a profit. Regardless, you're absolutely correct: the music industry is going down because of their own inability to manage the business in the face of anything even resembling competition.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339688)

True; that, plus rampant piracy. (And yes, I am fully aware that not every pirate would have bought a copy. I hope everyone else is aware that SOME few pirates WOULD have bought a copy if they couldn't get it for free).

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339878)

Some attorneys I've talked to about it the say quite the opposite, that given the way their scheme worked, the probably turned a profit.

I can't imagine how a few hundred people settling for less than $10K each could possibly offset the legal costs on even one of the high-profile lawsuits (none of which have resulted in any money actually being paid to the RIAA).

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (2, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339404)

EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.

Can't happen fast enough!

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (4, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339530)

EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.

Can't happen fast enough!

Actually, I would be sad to see them go down. Not because I feel sorry for a bunch of idiots who can't manage a business, but because I am sure that there is actually a good amount of music on EMI that IS worth listening to.

A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way. It is a shame that the music will suffer. I am not sorry that in this case a terrible company is going out of business, but that when they do go out of business, a certain amount of music will be lost to a degree.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (4, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339656)

Then we should all be sure to pirate as much as possible before that happens, so we can save the music for later generations!

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (4, Informative)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339722)

Actually, I would be sad to see them go down. Not because I feel sorry for a bunch of idiots who can't manage a business, but because I am sure that there is actually a good amount of music on EMI that IS worth listening to.

EMI actually does have a lot of good music. EMI is a large collection of smaller labels ranging from Blue Note, which publishes tons of classic and modern jazz, to Earache Records, which publishes many of today's best up and coming metal bands.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339754)

A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way.

Uh, EMI doesn't make the music, musicians do. Musicians won't go away just because some dinosaur music publisher does.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (4, Interesting)

Decker-Mage (782424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339828)

The question here, once EMI goes under, is what/to whom the rights devolve to under the terms of their contracts with the artists and labels under the EMI banner. If they devolve to the musicians, great. If they do not, then expect to see a fire-sale to pay off the bond-holders with whatever few scraps leftover to go to the (remaining) share-holders. Frankly, that would probably be the worst result since the musician will have new masters determing to flog the most out of them before the new entity goes bankrupt as well. Indentured servitude is a bitch and well should I know since both sides of my family came over to the US that way. Definitely not bed-side story fodder.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339892)

A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way. It is a shame that the music will suffer. I am not sorry that in this case a terrible company is going out of business, but that when they do go out of business, a certain amount of music will be lost to a degree.

When they go down, their assets will just be bought by another group.
I say we Blender EMI, buy their copyrights and then release them all to the public domain.
I'm in for $500, who's with me?

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

beav007 (746004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339936)

I'd personally prefer to return the copyrights to the artists.

Maybe it's time to start an exclusively online music label and distribution service?

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339552)

EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.

I may not be able to change politics with my vote, but at least I can do my part in bankrupting a company.
It's the thought that counts, right?

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (2, Insightful)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339558)

Nobody accused the music industry of being smart, logical, or able to formulate a business model. But, I'd like to point out that the 2009 sales dip might have something to do with the shitter the world economy is in... :)

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339650)

Your sig is pretty obscure.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

Gamma747 (1438537) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339564)

It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits.

For every person they actually take to court, they get several hundred out-of-court settlements.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339572)

Now RIAA made it even worse by making a big deal out of this, so now this story is Slashdotted. RIAA is actively promoting piracy. It would be best for RIAA to suspend all of its legal efforts and evolve with the times. Otherwise they will dig themselves into the ground with shame while attempting to place the blame on others.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339612)

Sales were down 67%. How much further down would they be if everyone knew for a fact that there would be no consequences to taking all the music they want for free? I would guess it's a much bigger number. The lawsuits make getting the free stuff a gamble. They're a cost of doing business, not a profit center.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339748)

10% maybe?

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339702)

I guess it's true then - Crime doesn't pay.

Re:Shouldn't they be happy? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339332)

They make more from one person forced to settle than thousands of buyers on itunes

What's Next? (4, Insightful)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339284)

Heaven forbid someone should use radio waves for transmitting illegal information! Or, even worse, terrorists might call each other! Let's forbid the very mention of phones and radios too!

Countersuit: (5, Interesting)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339420)

RIAA artists slyly encouraging ( underage sex | adultery | drive-by shooting | etc... )

You get the idea. Interesting how a certain media group displays a shocking ignorance of their own industry and the industries immediately adjacent to it.

Re:Countersuit: (1)

KingFrog (1888802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339788)

Thank you! Best point I've seen on the topic yet.

Re:Countersuit: (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339860)

Countersuit? With that? Really? I'd bet if someone actually did this it would be front page Slashdot material and people would be shouting 1984 everywhere. They have every right to their freedom of speech. Copyright infringement and Freedom of Speech are two completely different things.

What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (5, Insightful)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339290)

Shouldn't the RIAA be going after them for reviewing CD burners that can burn copied files? Or for reviewing software that rips .mp3 files or .wav files from audio CDs? Shouldn't PC Mag and all other publications be restricted from writing about anything that could potentially assist in copying music?

Re:What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339312)

Yes. They should also be prohibited from reviewing Garage Band, CakeWalk, or any other music production software. After all, if a bunch of hippies can make "demo tapes" that rival professionally produced records in production quality, then bands might just start recording their own music, releasing it directly to fans via the internet, marking it themselves via social networks, and promoting their own concerts. Then what would all of the untalented people do to get their cut? What would the radio DJs do for money without their payola? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PARASITES?!

Re:What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339492)

"Parasites" is a bit harsh. They put lot of work and money into providing valuable services like deciding what music you should listen to, and persuading you to do so.
Not to mention the artists who make it big with the backing of their PR machinery. Without their dominance of the distribution channels, artists would be forced to compete with their music instead of their dick-sucking skills, which would destroy the level playing field. Won't somebody think of the crap artists?

Re:What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (1)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339774)

Hear, hear! If that happens, Nickelback will have spent all that time getting good at sucking for nothing!

Re:What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339638)

"WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PARASITES?!"

Man, I wish I had mod points !

Best line of the year, by a wide margin, to Mister bsDaemon !!!!

Re:What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339654)

What would the radio DJs do for money without their payola?

IAARDJ (I am a radio DJ)...

The vast majority of us don't give a rat's ass about payola. We're not the ones who determine what goes into rotation. That's done by the program director, and in many small to mid-market stations, they simply follow the charts to determine what gets airplay. The operating budget for our stations comes solely from advertisers who we write/record/produce spots for. Only the biggest of the big-market stations are in any position to determine what is on the charts, and as such, are the ones who answer to payola. I would love to see them backhanded into a pit of despair, however.

Re:What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (5, Funny)

JoelWink (1846354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339464)

The Sony music division should sue the Sony computer division for putting CD/DVD burners on their Vaio laptops. Sony Music should also sue the Sony media division for selling blank CD-Rs and DVD-Rs.

Re:What about CD to .mp3 converters and so on? (2, Insightful)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339888)

It's all about how your present the product you are advertising or reviewing. For example it is legal to sell smoking equipment in the US which is largely used to smoke illegal substances. However if a customer even hints that they are going to use it for an illegal purpose then it is illegal to sell the equipment to them. Same goes here, this article did not list ways of distributing Linux distros. It listed alternatives to Limewire. And let's be honest, Limewire is obviously designed with Piracy in mind. Just look at the layout of how the searching and the integrated media player all works. Do you seriously believe that people who would have been using Limewire for legal purposes (such as downloading Linux distros of Creative Commons music) don't have much better alternatives for their legal distributions that were not listed there? The target audience of that post was obviously towards those wishing to commit copyright infringement.

Let the market decide (5, Interesting)

Christian Marks (1932350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339302)

PCMag is as much motivated by economic considerations as the RIAA. The difference is that PCMag is informing its readership and generating publicity for itself, while the RIAA is advertising its rent-seeking behavior and ignorance of the Internet. There is no way the article could be "unpublished" even if PCMag were to comply with these notorious intellectual monopolists.

Wrong channel (4, Insightful)

zlel (736107) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339308)

PCMag is not a music magazine. If it were, there would be ground for such contention; blaming PCMag is saying that a medical journal is pornographic. But then again, the "music industry" isn't at all about music and is not as much concerned about delivering music as it is about owning all the content that exists out there.

OH SH- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339346)

It was that day the RIAA decided to put a jihad on PCMag. And if you keep posting this, they'll put a jihad on /. too.

Re:OH SH- (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339462)

Maybe you mean fatwa.

Re:OH SH- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339714)

I like this, further pushing a notion of violence of a religion by using it's terms...

You may think "it was just a joke.. jeez", but after it used over and over and over, you end up with a groups of people taking it serious, it gets worse and worse. Internally, people become afraid of it.

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
-Yoda (896 BBY - 4 ABY)

The RIAA is correct. (5, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339350)

When I read PCMag's article, I wanted to illegally download music. Then, as I was reading the other links, I got to the RIAA's letter. Now, instead of wanting to illegally download music, I want to become a douchebag that bullies average people into paying money that they don't owe.

Speaking of which, I am hereby putting everyone on notice who has ever mod'ed me down, that they have cause me emotional distress and based upon the mathematical formulas that the RIAA uses, I will be suing you for

One hundred billion dollars for each moderation. But, we can settle now for just $50,000.

Re:The RIAA is correct. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339384)

One hundred billion dollars for each moderation.

Generally, it's best to use non-existent units. That way, you can make anyone owe you anything you want. For example, "One hundred gazillion dollars for each moderation." If anyone asks what a gazillion is, you tell them it's a legal term for "every penny you will ever earn so long as you and your family lives, and after that if there's anything left in your estate when we get through with it."

Blame Canada (1, Troll)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339366)

Southpark got it correct. They might as well blame Canada.

Re:Blame Canada (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339556)

It's ok, buddy, we can take it!

Good for them! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339370)

PCMag has also refused to retract the article.

+5 Doing the Right Thing

Be Fair (2, Insightful)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339388)

To be fair, the summary doesn't claim that "RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble". Rather, the RIAA is merely saying "you aren't helping". To use an analogy, if a magazine published an article on how to get past airport security with a bomb, that doesn't mean anyone would say "we blame [magazine X] for our terrorism problem" (as if it's the one and only reason for terrorism on airplanes), but you could certainly see how they aren't helping things.

I wish Slashdot was a little more objective in reporting the news, instead of just spinning the story in a sensationalist way to confirm what people want to hear.

Re:Be Fair (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339418)

To be fair, the summary doesn't claim that "RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble".

When it comes to organizations like the RIAA, fighting fair with fair just gets you burned. In this case, PC Mag is helping matters, so far as the general public is concerned, by getting a few facts out. The simple fact that the RIAA disagrees with them is sufficient indication that PC Mag is doing the right thing here. Kinda like the old saw, "When the competition threatens a lawsuit, you must be doing something right."

Helping the RIAA, from any reasonable perspective, serves no legitimate purpose.

Re:Be Fair (1, Insightful)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339508)

"The simple fact that the RIAA disagrees with them is sufficient indication that PC Mag is doing the right thing here."

Kinda sounds like a variation on "Hitler was wrong about everything, therefore always do the opposite and you'll be right" fallacy. Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? That's a reason not to be a vegetarian, right?

Re:Be Fair (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339532)

"The simple fact that the RIAA disagrees with them is sufficient indication that PC Mag is doing the right thing here." Kinda sounds like a variation on "Hitler was wrong about everything, therefore always do the opposite and you'll be right" fallacy. Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? That's a reason not to be a vegetarian, right?

Yes, but the reason that Hitler is universally hated isn't because of his dietary choices, it's because was a warmongering, empire-building, genocidal maniac. Generalizing beyond that is, I agree, ridiculous.

Which I wasn't doing. Given the history and predictability of the RIAA on these issues, you can pretty much be sure that doing the opposite of anything they suggest is, if nothing else, probably ethical.

Better check your English parser, mate (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339536)

From the Article:

"The harm done to the creative community when people are encouraged to steal our music is immeasurable. Disclaimer or no, when you offer a list of alternative P2P sites to LimeWire – and include more of the serial offenders -- PC Magazine is slyly encouraging people to steal more music” - [emphasis added]

And now the analysis by Epic Fail Records executive Brit74:

"To be fair, the summary doesn't claim that "RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble". Rather, the RIAA is merely saying "you aren't helping""

How you read that and concluded that they weren't blaming the PC Mag article is beyond me, but rest assured that there is no way around the simple fact that the RIAA is beyond a shadow of a doubt blaming PC Mag for "harm done" by "encouraging stealing".

Re:Be Fair (4, Insightful)

aqui (472334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339576)

Bad example. If a magazine published an article on how to get a bomb past airport security they would improve security. Why? How?
Simple their exposure of an obvious "security gap" would force the airport security to be improved.

Not knowing about a security hole and not telling anyone about it is not security.
It's a kin to someone writing about a hole in the airport fence that's hidden behind a bush.

Security through obscurity is not true security.

Similarly PCMags discussion of lime wire alternatives is simply pointing at the airport and telling you there are other holes in the fence that would need to be fixed (or in this cant be fixed).

The truth is that for the past 50 years the technology to distribute music to a large audience was not financially accessible to musicians and artists except through record labels. The technology has changed and the artificial lock that record labels had on artists is gone forever.

It's called disruptive innovation. Any business that does not innovate or compete through innovation will eventually experience it from a competitor (eg. Death of the walkman, the end of photographic film, horse and carriage, steam engines etc...) and if they don't have another way to make money they will go out of business.

So sad too bad... one more middle man cut out of the equation.

ORLY? (4, Insightful)

Kikuchi (1709032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339400)

So writing an article about P2P programs is encouraging the stealing of music?

I guess, by the same logic, that automobile magazines encourage drunk driving and gun magazines encourage murder.

Hahaha (-1, Offtopic)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339412)

Hahahaha! HAHAHA! Hahaha... AHAHAHAHA!

This says it all (5, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339458)

From the TFA: We wanted to send a direct response to the letter writers, but they failed to include a return address.

Blaming everyone but themselves (2, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339466)

The RIAA is acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

Re:Blaming everyone but themselves (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339694)

Glad to see they're growing up a bit. I was starting to think they'd be sucking their mother's tits forever at this rate.

Re:Blaming everyone but themselves (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339798)

Kind of like North Korea, wouldn't you say?

Not that I'm saying the RIAA is on the same level as those whackjobs (at least they haven't killed anyone yet... right?)

Information. Knowledge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339502)

Not that I sympathetic to the RIAA, they do have a bit of a point.
They claim sly encouragement, but I see it more like the information itself may expose new ideas to people who may previously had little knowledge about filesharing or how easy it is to get shit for free that you would normally have to pay for. The knowledge presented may even be benign: a tepid comparison of webcam chat sites. If someone didn't know about webcam chat sites before, boy howdy, they sure do now and might even decide to have a look. Torrent sites were out years before I heard about them, let alone heard about them being used for "illegal filesharing" from anyone (naive was I), and once I did, let me tell you I downloaded a heckload of Ubuntu ISOs.

Of course, it doesn't even matter what PCMag says. If PCMag told readers outright that illegal filesharing is all kinds of wrong and the legal hassle and punishments may be severe indeed, people would still do it.

"Don't do drugs." "What are drugs? I have some learning to do!"

Why not blame google for makeing it easy for peopl (4, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339504)

Why not blame Google for makeing it easy for people to find info on how to download music.

Brilliantly played (1)

UBfusion (1303959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339524)

Are PCMag true and mighty freedom warriors, or do they just want to make sure you are always able to 'preview' (and then delete of course) *their* (pirated) magazine copy instead of competitors' ?

If I were an advertiser, I would be more interested in the stats of such downloads than the stats of printed circulation.

Uneducated Executives (1)

skywire (469351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339578)

Evidently one can become a recording industry executive in an English-speaking country without understanding the meaning of a simple word like "steal".

The sooner ... (1)

Mick R (932337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339608)

the RIAA is declared a terrorist organisation and all it's executive dragged off to Git-mo the better off the world, and the music industry, will be.

PCMag has a history with me. . . (2, Interesting)

Ostsol (960323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339634)

I'm pretty sure that it introduced me to internet porn back around 1994/1995. My dad was a subscriber to the magazine, and while flipping through an issue I saw an article about recommended porn sites. Interestingly the one that caught my eye was actually amateur erotic fiction. Anyway, at the time it never occurred to me that it might be strange to see an endorsement for a porn site in a mainstream computer magazine. Thus, I can't find myself entirely surprised at an article about file-sharing networks.

Yeah, thaaaat's how to get good press... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339726)

Yeah, that'll get you good press. Insult the media. Brilliant!

Or is that...

Profit!!

Dishonesty (1, Interesting)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339746)

Oh how I hate dishonesty. I believe that the people behind this magazine published the article with the sole intention of pointing their readers to other sources of pirated material. Now when challenged, they play coy. Cowards. They should at least defend their action for what it was, rather than tucking their tails between their legs and pleading innocence. Journalists have died to defend the freedom of the press, and now these charlatans abuse that freedom by hiding their duplicitous actions behind the good name of journalism.

Who can you write to? (4, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339758)

I'd like to provide my feedback to both parties in this. I found the email addresses of a couple people at PCMAG that I could write to an express my views. So far, I have found NO email addresses of ANY of the executives who wrote that letter to PCMAG (as seen on Billboard).

My conclusion is clear. PCMAG has at least some interest in what its readers, and the general public, think about this. But the music industry executives clearly have no interest in what people think. They have their heads in the sand. They have some idea of what product they want to deliver, and all they want is to push it so hard that people will just accept it.

I really just wanted to ask them ... personally ... and that means NOT some secretary answering ... I want to hear directly from these executives themselves since they think their names are so important ... just where I can BUY music that will work for me (beyond what Magnatune [magnatune.com] has). Do they even consider me to be part of their target market? I have some serious doubts. And I bet a lot of people do, now.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...