Beta
×

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!

How Litigation Only Spurred On P2P File Sharing

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the perverse-incentives dept.

Piracy 140

littlekorea writes "The growth in peer-to-peer file sharing surged in response to efforts by the content industry to litigate over the past decade, according to a new study by a researcher at Melbourne's Monash University. Dr Rebecca Giblin explains why 'physical world' assumptions don't apply to the online world."

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Correlation does not equal causation (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033818)

and first!

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (5, Insightful)

Aguazul (620868) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033848)

Correlation does not exclude causation either.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033886)

In fact, the only thing observable in the world is correlation. Causation exists only in models and that model could be supported by observed correlation.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033900)

Most people would call you fools if you suggested that the mustard present in someone's refrigerator caused them to murder someone, though. Technically, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it's something to think about.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (4, Funny)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033972)

Yeah, real funny, smartass. Turns out I had already warned that fucker about PUTTING HIS CRAP ON MY SHELF! FUCK!

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034052)

I told my bastard roommate "if you make one more damn Grey Poupon joke, so help me I'll kill you!" But did he listen? No...

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (4, Funny)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034064)

No It wasn't Colonel Mustard in the kitchen it was Professor Plum in the study. Tim Curry would be so ashamed.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (1, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035268)

I TOLD that fucker I needed ketchup for my fries! Dammit did he listen? Oh HELL NO, he goes out and gets mustard. he thinks he can just punk me like that? he thinks I'm a fucking joke? Yeah who is laughing now mustard boy, huh?I hope you like that French's shit IN HELL!!

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38036894)

However, when the mayonnaise goes bad, all bets are off!

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034540)

Correlation is observing two things and noting the likelihood of them occurring together. Causation is experimental and is what is used for reasoning. F ex thing 1 happens, then thing 2 happens which wouldn't happen by itself. There is correlation between any 2 things in the universe except when it is actually the same event, as in perfect causation: If thing 1 happens, then thing 2 or vice versa. And it still would be proving causation since it doesn't tell which came first.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38036530)

What the fuck is "F ex"? You mean "e.g.". It might be Latin, but it is the accepted way of showing examples in English.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034660)

not only that-- the most downloaded films, tv shows, etc have the highest media sales. And what about the study done by Neil Gaiman, Cory Doctorow, and the guy who wrote the book The Alchemist, who released their stories online for free and have seen higher sales because of it (easier to track when it is a translated version from another language).

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035488)

In fact, the only thing observable in the world is correlation. Causation exists only in models and that model could be supported by observed correlation.

Uh, no. If I punch you in the nose and you start to nosebleed, nobody's going to question the causality of that. Sometimes it's hard to say because X leads to Y and Y leads to X or because there's some underlying factor Z leading to both X and Y, but there's usually some way to separate the effects. That said network effects are often very vital in understanding why an inferior solution is picked, a small edge in starting conditions can send the marketing spinning in another direction.

Re:Correlation does not equal causation (4, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034054)

Actually, the article does not limit its reasoning to showing correlation, it explains very well how the costly penalties and open source development changed the incentives in the P2P world and moved it from a centralized to decentralized one. Unlike your snarky comment, it was a rather insightful commentary on the economics of the phenomenon.

RTFA (4, Informative)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034304)

The author is not saying anything about correlation. What the article says is that because the law shut down the conventional methods of file-sharing, it caused people to turn to producing many varieties of free file sharing software to get around the potential litigation. The ultimate result was a great increase in the ease and availability of file-sharing software. The exact opposite of what the people writing the law intended. This happened because of a variety of physical world assumptions legislators made that don't apply in the world of software.

The end result? The mismatch between the law's physical world assumptions and the realities of the software world meant that the law created to respond to the challenges of P2P file sharing led to the opposite of the desired result: a massive increase in the availability of P2P file sharing software. The failure of the law to recognise the unique characteristics of software and software development meant the abandonment of the litigation campaign against P2P providers was only a matter of time.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38035450)

One can make the exact same arguments that the battle to shut down and prosecute spammers, malware and data theft has instead had the reverse effect, and therefore the authorities should give up (or should never have started in the first place). It's a silly argument, but those who make it know that they'll have a lot of support for their POV and will get their blogs linked by sites like this one.

Re:RTFA (4, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035860)

It seems to me you've made the opposite point to the one you wanted to. Maybe we should stop using the law to try to fix problems on the internet. The consequences to freedom and innovation have been raised time after time, but even on top of that, it seems apparent that the laws actually make the problem worse.

I mean look at botnets. We impose severe criminal penalties for breaking into computers. What happens? It deters all the script kiddies and the hobbyists from poking into systems in relatively innocuous ways that make apparent to the operator that they've been compromised and prompt them to clean the systems and patch the vulnerabilities. Net result: A decrease in petty crime in exchange for a stark increase in the number of vulnerable systems on the internet that are subsequently infected by stealth malware written by offshore criminal syndicates. We trade a decrease in the number of pranksters who open your CD tray remotely for an increase in identity theft, fraud and the distribution of child pornography.

It isn't at all obvious that that is an improvement over caveat emptor. There are known measures that people can take to prevent malware infection. Install patches, don't run shady binaries, etc. Script kiddies are like an inoculation -- it prompts the immune system to take defensive measures. And it may sting a bit but better that than to have the first sign of infection be $30,000 missing from your bank account.

Privilege of Prosecution. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033852)

Since when does someone take it upon theirselves to demand royalties from people that trade movies by lending their discs over Sneakernet?

Shut these bums down. They don't make a living or contribute to the quality of life to others around them other than to exact fines and fees with the same precision as the Zetas and IRS.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033940)

Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

And the content industry certainly does go after those persons mass producing unlicensed copies.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (5, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034010)

Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

*shrugs* it takes about 10 minutes for me to transfer an ISO to my hard drive, stripping the region coding as I do it, and then about 30 minutes to transcode that ISO into an MKV file that includes all of the soundtracks and subtitle information. If I'm not worried about the storage space, I can skip the second step. With a reasonably fast Internet connection, it *could* equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours, and the main difference between what I'm doing and downloading it off the Internet is that instead of downloading it from a host that might actually be owned by the content holder, I'm creating my own digital copy of it. That I don't then upload it to the Internet is mostly because I can't be bothered to do so, because I don't really care about that side of things. I am digitizing movies so that I don't have to devote a large amount of shelf space to their storage, not because I believe the information wants to be free.

You don't seriously think that the people doing the actual ripping/uploading (who are the people that the industry should *really* be going after) are *buying* dvd's, though, do you? All of the movies I rip, I own (physical copies and everything, just not kept in my living room), but most of the people who actually do the ripping/uploading are getting the movies from some form of sneakernet. Either they work at a video store and have physical access to the DVD before it's released, or they work in a theatre as a projectionist or something, and can rip the DVD while it's still in theatres, or they have a friend who does the above and gets the DVD for them. Most of them are not going to retail outlets and actually *buying* the DVD so that they can rip it.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (1, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034074)

I don't see what your reply has to do with my post - the OPs point was "well, if they are against X, then why arent they equally against Y?" when X and Y differ hugely in the effort required to do the same "damage". Someone lending over sneakernet is going to have to work pretty damn hard to lend to the same number of people that one person spending 5 minutes uploading to isohunt can end up distributing to over the internet.

Thats why X is more rigorously persued than Y.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (5, Informative)

drakken33 (859280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034126)

I don't want to sound picky but my local theatre doesn't use DVDs for it's digital content. It uses heavily DRM'd files supplied on a portable HDD or beamed in via satellite. The keys are sent separately as and when needed and expire in anything from a week or more. The files can be 200GB+. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a digital copy from a theatre but it's not easy.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035418)

And individually watermarked and tamper-proofed, if it did happen they'll know exactly when and where. I've never heard of anyone actually getting a raw 4k rip from these things, if they did I'm sure it'd come to halt very soon. Besides, almost nobody can watch it - I guess the people with 30" displays could get 1440p but 4k televisions and projectors practically don't exist. With the price of 4k equipment you might as well license yourself as a cinema too, won't be that much more expensive. Size would be an issue too, I think for the last of the LotR movies it was 900GB, not sure about that. They're going out practically uncompressed, no artifacting there.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (1)

drakken33 (859280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035464)

My local cinema only has 2k projectors and I don't know whether they get 4k content or specific 2k content. Their files work out to 100GB - 150GB per hour so I'm guessing they're getting 2k.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034788)

Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

*shrugs* it takes about 10 minutes for me to transfer an ISO to my hard drive, stripping the region coding as I do it, and then about 30 minutes to transcode that ISO into an MKV file that includes all of the soundtracks and subtitle information. If I'm not worried about the storage space, I can skip the second step. With a reasonably fast Internet connection, it *could* equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours, and the main difference between what I'm doing and downloading it off the Internet is that instead of downloading it from a host that might actually be owned by the content holder, I'm creating my own digital copy of it. That I don't then upload it to the Internet is mostly because I can't be bothered to do so, because I don't really care about that side of things. I am digitizing movies so that I don't have to devote a large amount of shelf space to their storage, not because I believe the information wants to be free.

You don't seriously think that the people doing the actual ripping/uploading (who are the people that the industry should *really* be going after) are *buying* dvd's, though, do you? All of the movies I rip, I own (physical copies and everything, just not kept in my living room), but most of the people who actually do the ripping/uploading are getting the movies from some form of sneakernet. Either they work at a video store and have physical access to the DVD before it's released, or they work in a theatre as a projectionist or something, and can rip the DVD while it's still in theatres, or they have a friend who does the above and gets the DVD for them. Most of them are not going to retail outlets and actually *buying* the DVD so that they can rip it.

I dunno about films and TV shows, but for music it definitely works that way for (private?) torrent trackers. 'Scene' releases are frowned upon because of their tendency to be a total mess, poorly encoded and so on. In addition, 'normal' people actually care about what they buy, and actually spend some time to make it nice and on occasion encourage others to do what they did; buy the content.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (3, Insightful)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035010)

On a lot of DVDs there is a clear warning before any of the content actually plays that says it is illegal to copy to DVD even for home use... and then it says all that stuff about Felonies and the FBI and Interpol. Here is I think an apt point about all of this: in Russia and China they pirate DVDs by the truckload and then just redistribute the movies without paying any royalties at all. It is a common practice. But the lawyers in America who make money on these kinds of cases can't do anything about Russians or Chinese pirates. Its like if a city wants to increase revenue by putting up speed traps all over town to catch speeding drivers. Its not that the people who get tickets are the only speeders but rather that the police target their enforcement in places that maximize their revenue. The movie industry will have a lot easier time wrenching money out of the hands of American who share DVDs than they will trying to get Chinese or Russian DVD bootlegging businesses to pay anything at all.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036624)

Irony is a pirated DVD that retains the warnings.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (1)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036984)

The miracle of k9copy.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38037048)

Pirates tend to be very fussy about saving space. They often specify a lower bitrate for the credits, barely enough to read the text, so they can make the files just that little bit smaller.

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034162)

Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

And the content industry certainly does go after those persons mass producing unlicensed copies.

Who are these anti-social jerks who have the power to spread knowledge, information and culture to all intellectually starving people on earth, but choose not to wield that power to make the world a better place by sharing with their fellow humans over the Internet, but instead use the sneaky Sneakernet to share with an elite of a select few? They are obviously enemies of decent humans everywhere and should have their discs confiscated and put to better use!

Re:Privilege of Prosecution. (5, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034444)

Uhhhh - what exactly does it matter if tens of thousands get their copies in a few hours, or if it takes ten or twelve days? The end result is precisely the same - everyone who really wants a copy will get one.

Oh - you may object that "Well, SOME people won't want a copy badly enough to put the wear on their sneakers! P2P actually ENCOURAGES people to make copies." And, I would say "Bullshit!" My wife and sisters had extensive libraries before any of them had access to internet. One would rent a movie, and make two, six, or twelve copies, depending on who they thought the movie would appeal to. I'm not sure that I could load out a tractor trailer with all their stuff, but I could most certainly load two smaller local delivery trucks. Shelves and shelves, loaded with old VCR movies.

In short - the time involved makes no difference at all. If anything, the internet has saved me from further inundation by VCR, CD, and DVD recordings. Now, everything is stored on hard drive! Imagine that - entire libraries, stored on a hard drive! I love it!

Learned about P2P from RIAA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033864)

I learned that this existed and that you could pirate stuff from all the controversy the RIAA and MPAA have done. If they never got sue happy and had absolute no morals, I probably wouldn't even know you could do this.

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033878)

:O Are you aware at least, that there's porn on the internet, too?

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (4, Funny)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033978)

When celebrities start suing .xxx domain owners he'll find out...

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033996)

You'd be suprised how oblivious the average user is, to what can be found on the Internet.

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (3, Insightful)

DaleSwanson (910098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036960)

You'd be suprised how oblivious the average user is, to what can be found on the Internet.

About 2 years ago, I was taking a low level math class and, one day while in the library, someone from the class came up to me and asked if I could help with some of the homework he was stuck on. It became clear that his problem was he forgot how to deal with fractions, eg, he couldn't add two fractions with different denominators.

I told him he should brush up on his fraction rules. A good idea would be just to google 'fraction review' and read through a few of those, then something like 'fraction review problems' and do a bunch of practice problems. His response was: (slightly amazed) "they have that on the internet?"

Given how often I used the internet as a reference for anything and everything this legitimately boggled my mind.

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034438)

What is this "porn" you speak of? ...

Oh, my.

If you'll excuse me, I need a free hand...

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (-1, Troll)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034970)

What the fuck are you talking about. The RIAA/MPAA have no morals? How people can rationalize stealing (yes, it's stealing) music, movies and video games off the internet just blows my mind. It is equivalent to going into a music store and taking a copy off the racks and walking about without paying. It's that simple. The people who do this have no morals, not the companies trying to protect their products.

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (3, Informative)

Nihilomnis (2469528) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035288)

No, just no.

"Pirated" copies do not use the original producers resources nor do they diminish them in ANY way.

Economically (in respect to the original producing company), there is no difference between a person who does not buy and does not listen/watch/read/etc the media, and a person who obtains and "consumes" an unofficial copy.

Technically even stealing a copy from Wal-mart wouldn't be stealing from the original producing company as the product has already changed hands and has been paid for.

I'm not even going to get into the moral side of the argument because I am not informed enough to do so, but every time I hear or read of someone trying to say torrenting / downloading is stealing it makes me metaphorically want to punch a baby.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal [reference.com]
First entry for steal:

to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

The watch in the example was indeed stolen; the owner had one less watch and the thief had one more. In the case of torrented or downloaded data the original producer does not lose a copy, but one who downloads gains a brand new copy created with the resources of whomever is seeding the torrent or hosting the download. IT IS NOT STEALING!

Yes it is copyright infringement, but as that was not what you were saying the point is moot.

Oh and after re-reading your post I found something, that I believe to be a mistake, that brings a great big smirk to my face. :)
You:"It is equivalent to going into a music store and taking a copy off the racks and walking about without paying."
Emphasis on "walking about"; it is not theft until you leave the store.

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (2)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035680)

Not Stealing until you leave with the intention of depriving the owner of his property.

You might take something outside to see how it looks in daylight but as long as you bring it inside again not theft. Depriving someone of a sale isn't theft it is generally called competition. Choosing to buy online at a lower price than your local store is not theft either. Choosing to buy one authors book rather than yours isn't theft.

Re:Learned about P2P from RIAA (2)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035484)

"Yes, it's stealing"

You do know the difference between an opinion, and a fact, right?

lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38033872)

Typical of lawyers: why say in one paragraph what one can say in a whole page.

Re:lawyers (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033894)

Typical of lawyers: why say in one paragraph what one can say in a whole page.

Actually, when writing end user license agreements, lawyers often limit themselves to a single paragraph to describe the rights of the user...

Re:lawyers (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033950)

There's a whole paragraph? I'd say it's more like a line.

Re:lawyers (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033984)

Yes. It's usually this one:

You have the right to do as we tell you.

Re:lawyers (1)

Asgerix (1035824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034062)

Actually, I think it's more like:

You don't have the right to do anything, except what we tell you.

Users' rights are just 1 word+that word is:"Obey!" (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034684)

...or "(You will) comply!" if they preferred the Borg over John Carpenter's "They Live" to inspire their DRM T&C.

it's more like a line

But this is not working. (2)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033884)

The threat of litigation is not stopping everyone from downloading movies and games, the torrent sites are still running. And there are FTP sites popping up that have movies on them as well, piracy is everywhere.

Re:But this is not working. (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033992)

Which is great for FSM supporters and for anyone worried about the climate change.

Re:But this is not working. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38036928)

Afraid not, per FSM doctrine only REAL pirates count, guys with parrots, eyepatches and ships.

Re:But this is not working. (1, Redundant)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034296)

The threat of litigation is not stopping anyone from downloading

There, fixed it for you.

All in a bucket (2, Interesting)

EEDAm (808004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033918)

The article reads like an undergraduate who wants to write a shit-kicking thesis and is really oooh excited about things but has entirely failed to do anything more than throw a few disjointed ideas in a bucket. It is peppered with lines that sound good but don't stand up to a couple of seconds examination: " So once the Napster litigation made P2P programmers aware of the rules about knowledge and control, they simply coded Napster's successors to eliminate them." I mean WHAT? Programmers coded out rules of "knowledge and control"???? No, the rules of law on knowledge and control exist independently in jurisprudence. How do you "code out" something that's entirely outwith software? Nonsense.

The author states "I would argue pre-P2P era law was based on a number of "physical world" assumptions." She goes to state that that makes sense because, well, it was pre-P2P. When you start any sentence with "I would argue that" (which is bad enough as it goes) and then point out in the next sentence that it's bleeding obvious, then it rather tends to underline you haven't made a point at all. Which is more than a small problem when you then go to make four non-points on the back of that about "the physical world" where, again, one sees no connection to the principal "argument" that litigation apparently "spurred on" file sharing. Ideas in a bucket.

And at the heart of it, the article offers no causative argument that litigation spurred on file sharing. At best it observes that file sharing increased in the era after litigation but it falls down entirely in showing any causation rather than correlation. There are other daft arguments about the Supreme Court making laws: it doesn't, de Tocqueville et al were rather insistent it couldn't; rather its interpretation of law clarifies the law already in place, which show the author is floundering on the subject matter.

So a number of ideas that sound like they were excitedly discussed in an undergraduate bar (and not at a terribly good college) and aren't worked through or even put into a single coherent narrative and which argues causation but offers no evidence of it.

Weak.

Re:All in a bucket (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033966)

And at the heart of it, the article offers no causative argument that litigation spurred on file sharing. At best it observes that file sharing increased in the era after litigation but it falls down entirely in showing any causation rather than correlation.

I had never heard of Napster or P2P filesharing and had no idea that it existed until I read about Napster getting sued. I want to thank the RIAA for letting me know about this wonderful resource. I'm sure that there are many millions of people who share my similar experience.

Re:All in a bucket (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034000)

You forget that part of the litigation process was the advertising that they started forcing on people who bought legal copies. Who can forget the message of, you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a handbag, you wouldn't steal a television, and of course, you wouldn't steal a movie. Hmm, but yes I must admit given the oppurtunity I would not have the slightest qualm about copying a car, copying a handbag or, copying a television and of course now where does that leave me when it comes to copying a movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0CkJgHKEY8 [youtube.com] . This and other stupid anti-piracy made it far cooler to copy than to be lame and buy.

The other big thing about the copyright litigation process, it was all pretty obvious it was a quick dirty extortion route to law, poor people where targeted for publiclity stakes and then the lawyers got greedy. The gathering of evidence was laughable, nothing beyond the most weak of circumstantial evidence was submitted, more often than not when challenged the court cases failed.

Re:All in a bucket (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035602)

Ultimately, they're telling Captain Picard is stealing every time he says "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot". And that's bullshit. He's the fucking captain of the Federation's flagship and he'll copy whatever the fuck he wants.

Re:All in a bucket (3, Funny)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035756)

Ultimately, they're telling Captain Picard is stealing every time he says "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot". And that's bullshit. He's the fucking captain of the Federation's flagship and he'll copy whatever the fuck he wants.

And it's because of people like you that Earl Grey's children go to bed hungry every night.

Re:All in a bucket (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036678)

Ha ha ha.

Your statement fits the line of reasoning to a "T".

Re:All in a bucket (5, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034026)

The article reads like an undergraduate who wants to write a shit-kicking thesis and is really oooh excited about things but has entirely failed to do anything more than throw a few disjointed ideas in a bucket. It is peppered with lines that sound good but don't stand up to a couple of seconds examination: " So once the Napster litigation made P2P programmers aware of the rules about knowledge and control, they simply coded Napster's successors to eliminate them." I mean WHAT? Programmers coded out rules of "knowledge and control"???? No, the rules of law on knowledge and control exist independently in jurisprudence. How do you "code out" something that's entirely outwith software? Nonsense.

I understood perfectly what the author was writing about in reference to knowledge and control.

Specifically, in regards to knowledge: The authors of Kazaa and Napster had the means, as a consequence of the design of their systems, to know what was being transmitted, by whom, and to whom it was going. This constituted knowledge of their customers actions. Most modern P2P software has no central server and no communications between the users of the software and the authors of the software. In short, the authors have no idea who is using their software, where they got it from, or what they are using it for. More importantly: they have no practical way of knowing.

Control is even easier to understand in this context. Napster and Kazaa relied on a central server to provide the service. These services had the ability to control what was being listed, or transmitted using their software. By virtue of their licensing, they had the ability to control who even used it. P2P eliminated almost all central control by way of servers, and the open source licensing ensured that anyone could use the software regardless of their intent. This means that even if the makers of xyz P2P software wanted to halt its use entirely, they would be legally (and logistically) incapable of doing so. They no longer have any practical control over their software, its users, or how they use it.

And at the heart of it, the article offers no causative argument that litigation spurred on file sharing. At best it observes that file sharing increased in the era after litigation but it falls down entirely in showing any causation rather than correlation. There are other daft arguments about the Supreme Court making laws: it doesn't, de Tocqueville et al were rather insistent it couldn't; rather its interpretation of law clarifies the law already in place, which show the author is floundering on the subject matter.

The article made a fairly persuasive argument about the likely underlying reasons for growth of online piracy *in spite* of the massive legal efforts of the **AA organizations. The articles unstated assumption is, that when faced with and defeated by such a large scale legal assault, the pervasiveness of piracy should have decreased. instead, as we know it increased. The article then provides a very persuasive explanation for the reasons why this legal assault failed. In the past many other similar assaults on piracy have succeeded. You don't see a whole lot of counterfeit goods in this country because of the reasons listed in the article. Online piracy is rampant however.

Weak.

Better than your response which was weak and trollish.

-=Geoskd

Re:All in a bucket (1)

EEDAm (808004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034760)

I see what you mean about knowledge and control; it's poor english suggesting the *rules* of knowledge and control were coded out. Anyway, offering direct criticism of an article based on reasons (which you are free to disagree with) doesn't make you a troll, it makes you critical. The point is that while there was growth in file sharing, it argued that the approach to litigation directly led to that *growth* in file sharing. I found no argument in the article that showed that one led to the other and it is the very title of the article which stakes itself out as having established causation. I didn't see any evidence that linked the *growth* of file sharing to litigation approach. Who's to say it wouldn't have happened anyway?

Re:All in a bucket (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035508)

I didn't see any evidence that linked the *growth* of file sharing to litigation approach. Who's to say it wouldn't have happened anyway?

The headline and introduction of the article doesn't seem to match the final conclusion which is (my emphasis):

The mismatch between the law's physical world assumptions and the realities of the software world meant that the law created to respond to the challenges of P2P file sharing led to the opposite of the desired result: a massive increase in the availability of P2P file sharing software.

The argument is that the lawsuits increased the availability of software used for file sharing. It doesn't actually address the claim made in the first paragraph and the title, that the lawsuits increased file sharing activity.

Re:All in a bucket (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035778)

Control is even easier to understand in this context. Napster and Kazaa relied on a central server to provide the service. These services had the ability to control what was being listed, or transmitted using their software. By virtue of their licensing, they had the ability to control who even used it. P2P eliminated almost all central control by way of servers,

Actually, the completely anarchist P2P networks weren't doing all that great and were extremely spammed and filled with leechers. It was centralized services around servers like DC++ hubs and BitTorrent trackers that really drove P2P adoption, it's just that the developers had nothing to do with the servers anymore. Hell I just checked and TPB is now ranked #76 on Alexia and 15 of those above are google.* so in reality more like 60th most popular website in the world. Just like TPB split from the tracker service, the model works it's just routing around the legal system.

Re:All in a bucket (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034108)

It's not quites as bad and your pedantic rant makes it out to be. Consider the following.

Paragraph 1: Change "code out" to "code around" (i.e. make them pragmatically unenforceable) and you get the point that was trying to be made

Paragraph 2: Ironically, I can't tell what you're trying to say other than that the writing/reasoning is sub par and that somehow the two are equated so I'll skip this one.

Paragraph 3: Wow, how's your first year of law school going? Just kidding. Okay maybe you have a point with the causation/correlation thing but that's not shocking given that people do it all the time and by the way correlation is still meaningful even though it doesn't show causation. With regards to the Supreme Court and de Tocqueville mishmash of reasoning, I'm pretty sure that the debate on whether courts using a precedent based system are interpreting or creating law wasn't settled in 1800s by the writing of one man. It continues to be an argument today with reasonable interpretations on both sides.

Re:All in a bucket (1)

EEDAm (808004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034850)

You meant "It's not quite (no 's') as bad as (not and) your pedantic rant makes it out to be."

How's that for pedantry? :)

Just kidding before you get all red-misty. The point about making law matters because in fact the legislative *has* directly legislated in respect of file sharing and that's where this particular gun should be pointed not at the judiciary. The idea that the Supreme Court makes law is the sort of thing that gets set to high school students but has a clear answer (it doesn't) even if its precedents can, of course, have huge effect. It's a pundit type statement and it's plain wrong. The article suggests the courts made a "mistake" in the way they ruled if their intention was to block file sharing and that the litigation approach led to increases. Neither are made out and the basis of the suggestion that they'd even be in the business of doing that is simply wrong as explained. I qualified in 1996 as it happens.

Re:All in a bucket (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034220)

Just as the internets route around damage, P2P programmers treated the legal structure that took down Napster and coded around it. When the legal system further invented nonsense rules, the programmers once again coded around them.

As to the article itself, it didn't create laws, it created a DOCTRINE. Inducement is not found in the copyright laws in question but was something made out of whole cloth by SCOTUS. Kinda like the Kelo decision. Or the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Or almost every damned drug case since the 40's, although that folds right back into the Commerce Clause abuse for the most part.

Re:All in a bucket (1)

greenbird (859670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036458)

And at the heart of it, the article offers no causative argument that litigation spurred on file sharing.

I'm confused as to why you think there needs to be definitive causative evidence that the lawsuits increased file sharing. The object of the lawsuits was to reduce or eliminate file sharing. Whether they directly caused an increase is more an aside to the fact that there was a tremendous increase despite them. Thus they failed miserable in their objective while having very large other negative side effects.

Weak content, interesting source (4, Interesting)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033926)

Just finishing reading this long page on how the file sharing litigation process is flawed, I feel little enlightened. Most of the observation presented have been discussed here over a decade ago. What's interesting though, is where these observations are coming from. Maybe someone on the legal size has finally opened his eyes.

If that's good or bad for file shares and file sharing app creators is another story though.

Isn't economics requires? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38033982)

Doesn't anyone take economics anymore?
Every product has a price that is based on supply and demand.
Digital media once created has a verry high supply ability. Thus it's cost is lowered. Digital content providers are charging more then what supply and demand curve intercection states. And legal controls that are trying to maintain this off balance. So... Blackmarkets are naturally formed to provide goods at their actual costs.

This is the same thing with drugs, unpasturized milk, under the counter workers...

Re:Isn't economics requires? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034286)

It should be obvious by now that the crackdown on filesharing as the keystone to internet control. There's a shitstorm coming at the collapse of the Euro, and one-way media flow/internet censorship is vital to managing the effects.

perfect (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034300)

comment.

Re:Isn't economics requires? (3, Insightful)

Strange Ranger (454494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034664)

This is it. The whole article is -maybe- good reading for lawmakers and prosecutors who want to have better hindsight specifically regarding P2P laws. But it doesn't get at the heart of why P2P exploded. To understand that, just look at marijuana growth and potency over the last 30 years. It's a plant, so it takes longer to "program", but the stuff available now is orders of magnitude more powerful than the "dirt weed" available in the 70s and 80s. Law enforcement went after fields, and weight, and volume, so growers made ever increasingly potent strains. Powerful strains that grow fast and explode with buds when they reach a foot tall. Now they can make the same amount of THC in a basement in a couple months that before took a field and a year. This same phenomenon exists with prostitution, porn, gambling, horse power limits on outboard motors, large volume toilets "from Canada", etc etc.
 
YOU CAN'T EFFECTIVELY CURB DEMAND WITH LAWS.
 
All you can do is alter the supply chain.
 
Instead of FINALLY learning this basic tenet of human civilization that has been presenting itself for literally millenia, this time we're going to blame the internet.
  Wonder what we'll be blaming in 3027?

Re:Isn't economics requires? (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036752)

That is partially propaganda and partially true.

If you look at drug articles for other drugs, they show a consistent of claiming this is more pure/powerful than ever before but the percentage of purity quoted is about the same going back to the 80's.

They also claim that this particular bust will put a serious dent in the drug and raise prices. But the prices have dropped consistently since the early 80's.

Think about this on pot.

If you want to get stoned (drunk), then you would need to use less of it as it became more potent. Which would reduce demand. In the early 80's it took about 1 joint to become stoned and it lasted 2-3 hours. Today, it takes about 1 joint to become stoned and it lasts 2-3 hours. Interesting?

If pot were so much more powerful- then wouldn't tiny amounts get you stoned for much longer periods of time?

One change that *does* appear to have occurred is an emphasis on THC over cannabinoids. Which is too bad. Because THC just makes you feel stoned while the cannabinoids are what makes you giggly, happy, and goofy. I.e. the fun part of the high.
I'm not sure on the growing period. I hadn't heard they could grow it faster. That's interesting.

I'm not saying there are not high THC varietals out there. But in those cases- two puffs and you are done. I mean- you do not drink absinth the same way you drink wine. You do not drink everclear the same way you drink beer.

Now-- pot is pretty healthy to begin with but the healthiest way to consume it is to use an oil or butter to steep off the active agents and cook it into food. Otherwise you risk a 2% increase in the rate of emphysema which you really don 't want.

A note on alchohol. Of any kind. It appears to seriously reduce strokes and heart attacks and arterial diseases. So if you are at risk of those- having a drink (women) or two (men) a day helps. Going over that tends to produce booze related problems.

Cheers

Re:Isn't economics requires? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034690)

Digital media once created has a verry high supply ability. Thus it's cost is lowered. Digital content providers are charging more then what supply and demand curve intercection states. And legal controls that are trying to maintain this off balance. So... Blackmarkets are naturally formed to provide goods at their actual costs.
This is the same thing with drugs, unpasturized milk, under the counter workers...


Whilst there are similarities there are also differences. If drug prohibition were ended there would be a hugely profitable legal market (including many products which don't exist in the current black market). It would also be very likely that the result would be better quality products at a cheaper price.
It's rather hard to see how anyone could possibly compete with the current "black market" file sharing. Content is typically available worldwide very soon after the first showing. Quality tends to be high. "Purity" also tends to be high. With ads, trailers, etc removed. The only "adulterations" tending to be DOGs, adverts mixed in with the content, etc.

Re:Isn't economics requires? (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036094)

You're only arguing implicitly that the efforts to reduce file sharing have been ineffective. What happens when you legalize what was once a black market is that the costs of avoiding the ban disappear and are recaptured by the buyers and sellers in the form of higher margins at lower prices, which can pay for increases in quality etc. If the ban is ineffective then those costs are small.

Of course, if the ban is ineffective then maintaining it is a complete waste of resources on the enforcement side -- just because the cost of avoiding the ban are small doesn't necessarily mean the costs of attempting to enforce it are, or that there are no negative externalities on other parties like independent artists or software developers.

Re:Isn't economics requires? (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035214)

The problem is that there is no cost to the one who isn't creating the content. So no, the black market isn't forming t provide the products at their actual costs. Black markets are forming because in this case, the replication costs are such a small component of the actual production costs. So it is almost better for one to not produce and take the risk that people may not like your product, and just sell copies of the successful products that already exist.

Re:Milk? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38037166)

... There is demand for unpasturized milk?

Are people actively trying to get themselves sick or something? Where I live there's zero supply because it's banned from sale. (you have me doubting about our demand side of the scale though)

Information is not a physical object? No shit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034002)

Anyone who actually looked at the things for himself, instead of parroting what he heard (mostly from the media Mafia), always knew that you can't treat information like a physical object.

But it should be obvious to everyone who ever copied a file. Or who knows about how "moving" a file is actually implemented with making a copy plus "deleting" the original. Where "deleting" actually means "forgetting", as in "we overwrite the pointer to its location in the storage" and sometimes as in "we overwrite the data with new data".

And it should also be obvious to everyone who ever gave information to somebody non-trustworthy, who then passed it on to everyone else, without any way to control it and often without one even knowing it (other than with a 1984-like state with DRM/TCPA chips in everyone's head).
That "license" you get when you get some information (like a song), and that dumb people call "buying", is that contract of trust. Which is just silly, since without total surveillance, they couldn't even find out if you gave a shit or a copy to everyone but them.

Basically what they want is total control over a piece of information, while giving it to everyone for money WITHOUT doing ANY work at all. (Remember: They distribute. [Something that nowadays takes as much work as putting a link on a website.] They do not make anything. They take the work of others and give them 3.5% of the money, tops, with with the artists still have to pay e.g. studio bills.)

Sorry, that's
1. a crime, and
2. a pipe dream.

If it ever "works", society will be dead. (Which includes them too.)

eyp! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034040)

Re:eyp! (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034326)

> [goat.cx]

I'd buy Rebecca Giblin's book but... (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034112)

If you go to Amazon, its listed at $115US for preorder.

It sounds like an excellent read, and I'd pay about 1/10 the price (more or less).

Dr. Giblin is there a place to buy this book at a regular price?

Weaponised Internet (4, Interesting)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034120)

It makes me think about recent events with the Arab Spring's use of technology, Anonymous, and Wikileaks. Are the little people (us) in essence weaponizing the internet against the powers-that-be? Ad-hoc mesh networks might be a fall-back when the powers-that-be realize that and try to switch it off.

But especially with regard to Wikileaks. They say they've been stymied by the financial blockade of the big banks. So I wonder if there is any work being done on how to route around the financial blockade, since it seems to be the only thing that has remotely stopped the efforts of the little people against the powers-that-be.

Re:Weaponised Internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034262)

"So I wonder if there is any work being done on how to route around the financial blockade, since it seems to be the only thing that has remotely stopped the efforts of the little people against the powers-that-be."

That thing that Slashdot loves to hate on so much - Bitcoin. It is Bittorrent for digital money and money transmission.

Re:Weaponised Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034442)

But especially with regard to Wikileaks. They say they've been stymied by the financial blockade of the big banks.

Maybe if wikileaks had decided to stick with leaking specific and controversial information, much like Deep Throat or the Pentagon Papers, instead of large amounts of low secret information, wikileaks wouldn't be in this mess.

Juror #13 (4, Insightful)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034194)

The real pirates and usurpers are the labels and -IAAs, just ask some of the real creators about their royalty checks from the labels. Copyright has become sheer extra-constitutional thuggery with ex post facto changes, favoritism, public subsidy, harassment, subversion and essentially unlimited terms. F-'em.

What do they want? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034232)

It hepls to think about who wants what:

- music makers ultimately want to do music; they derive pleasure from doing that; it's their very nature to do so and to want to do it;
- listeners just dig music; it is somewhat surprising people can appreciate music without being able to compose it, but somehow it happens; they'll get angry at what interposes itself between them and what they want -- just like any child...
- music distributors couldn't care less about music -- they want profits, by any means they can get it (alas, there's a problem with vicious capitalism, but let's save it for another occasion); for them, creating scarcity is a way to boost profits; they also have this naïve idea that masses can be contained; it's a clear joining of evil intent with ignorance about how society works plus overestimation of their own power to control things.

Misunderstanding one's own power, btw, is behind several disasters we met along the way in mankind's history, but let's save this, too.

In the end, composers will resort to free music and donations, precisely as a way to get rid of distributors -- because these latter have been so obnoxious. As everyone can see in commerce, getting rid of middlemen is a nobrainer, which means distributors might consider what to do after they lose their jobs -- or, alternatively, desperately try to survive... the first measure being, of course, changing their attitude 180 degrees by:

1. being really helpful to both composers and listeners;
2. it follows, but let's say it: don't steal from both parties!
3. stopping the bullying tactics -- that's suicide;
4. having a nice agenda, being clear about it and sticking to it;
5. disappear from the news: achieve the status of being accepted and keep a low profile.

Actually, now that I think about it, this could work also for proprietary software companies and for Linux distros.

Re:What do they want? (0)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035032)

GTFO. Everyone is looking to maximize profit for their product. Everyone. Here's the bottom line: Music is created, the details don't matter. Music is for sale at a set price. If you want it, you pay that price. If you don't want it, you don't. STEALING IT because you don't agree with the price is not a valid option unless you are a criminal.

Re:What do they want? (2)

nothousebroken (2481470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035482)

I don't know what country you're from, but in the U.S. file sharing does not fit the legal definition of stealing. Moreover, simple not-for-profit file sharing is not a criminal act. I know, I know, the propaganda commercials say otherwise. They're lying. So, to your comment, file sharing does not make one a criminal. It merely exposes one to civil liability.

By comparison, breach of contract also exposes one to civil liability. As every first year law student knows, the law encourages breach of contract in cases where the breach is economically efficient. It would be interesting to analyze file sharing under the same logic. File sharing is economically efficient for the sharer since the expected economic advantage is likely greater than the expected loss (civil damages weighted by the probability of getting caught).

Again, I am only speaking for U.S. law. It is different in other countries.

Re:What do they want? (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38035492)

Nevermind that your generalized rambling ignores the difference between copying and actual theft, ignores that stealing is based on permission to take [and not payment or lack thereof -> that is just a vice for getting permission], and that music/games/etc legally exist for free, and it isn't a breakdown of pay for all, or get nothing/get free == always criminal. In short, your argument fails on the basis that it takes out too many legitimate contingencies that contradict your premises.

Re:What do they want? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38035858)

> GTFO. Everyone is looking to maximize profit for their product. Everyone. Here's the bottom line: Music is created, the details don't matter. Music is for sale at a set price. If you want it, you pay that price. If you don't want it, you don't.

You may be trolling (and badly, unless it's intentional) -- but since you pose a so caricate face of a (evil) distributor, I feel better.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion, yours matches that of what I called a distributor. Mine matches one of a composer. When I do things, I want everyone to see it, even though not everyone will like it (like my posts, for instance).

You (and other simplistic minded distributors) resemble that Chinese emperor in the old Andersen fable about a nightingale. I hope you meet a similar happy fate.

Two things off the top of my head (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034260)

First, what happens when you tell someone you can't do something? They go off to do it. Forbidden fruit and all that.

Second, content producers just don't want to let us buy stuff like any other normal product. Music and video come with DRM, so we can't make a backup copy (*cough*). It's not like they will provide me (outside of Disney) a replacement at a reduced price. Just give me an unencumbered disc/file. (And preferable at some type of reasonable price.)

Re:Two things off the top of my head (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034426)

First, what happens when you tell someone you can't do something? They go off to do it.

bryan1945, you can't murder anyone.

Re:Two things off the top of my head (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38035936)

First, what happens when you tell someone you can't do something? They go off to do it.

bryan1945, you can't murder any RIAA lawyers.

(Hey, it's worth a shot.)

They just don't get it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38034552)

For more than 100 years, every time the government tries to stop people from doing what they want to do, there is instantly either a black-market created, or people find a way around the law. You would think the idiots in power would understand that by now - and I'm sure they do, but it is just too lucrative to do it this inept way. Sure people loose money on the deal, but those in power obviously are making money - which is the goal. Look at how much Obama and the other politicians are making off wall-street at the moment - why would they want anything to change?

So, if a court says - you are guilty because you did x, y, and z - then as a coder I will find away around it, so I'll do x, somsone else will do y, and someone else will do z. Now I can still do all three, it's just that I have to create a different businesses so that on paper I'm not actually the one doing it - thank you supreme court. So if I write a tracker - which just yield hashes, I have no idea of what is in those hashes so I have no knowledge of what people are doing, and that is fine. Then I have another company that allows people to post information which maps information to those hashes. So I'm just a search engine. And as long as there are other writing P2P applications - which uses standard file transport technology. I'm in the clear on all counts. Politicians and business majors are idiots when it comes to what is feasible technologically - and since I control who sees my system, I just put a peerblocker on so no one associated with the government or RIAA, or MPAA can connect to my system and let normal people do so. And thank you for allowing me to create a bullet proof system.

Then you try to control DNS - okay, so we'll go to a dissociative DNS system so you can't do that, and thank you for exposing a flaw. And they waste these silver bullets - they did it with GPS during the first Gulf War, and now built into every phone and GPS system are several ways to figure out where you are, so if the government screws it up again, it won't matter. Technology CANNOT be controlled - THANK HEAVENS!!!!

If I encrypt everything on all of my hard-drives - it doesn't matter what you KNOW, it's a question of what you can prove... And that is nothing...

Brilliantly Written (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034602)

Bravo!

          The world is a changing place. I believe through computers society has evolved ,en mass, to a path more beneficial to the species. Fighting nature is more futile than resisting "The Borg". The founding fathers were right in the beginning to protect NEW invention to the inventor for a limited 4 year span. Further ahead were the unforeseen inevitable crash of immovable object (individual ability to compute, copy, network and communicate to the world on a level playing field with other individuals, thus creating a virtual "world mind" which in turn evolved at the speed of technology enabling the individual.From which there is no turning back short of world wide cataclysm) by irresistible force (The momentum of the old Cro-magnon, dark age , wrong headed notion that work created as intangible could be protected for the purpose of individual profit. Best stick to tangible retail and mfg. for $ boys. Seems the world has a mind of it's own and it shares thoughts and connections around our brain via the network-a-ma-jig.) This has the implication of a new human right to it. The right to existent knowledge to the individual for the purpose of survival in an increasingly populated competitive world.
Bravo! We have wrought a Bio/Binary super computer via the interthingy. Stick that in your tube and pipe it for a bit!
I expect it has implications for everyone from filmmakers to codemonkeys to your grandma's recipe for baklava. In return, we ,as individuals have decided that
it is a NATURAL law that "information longs to be free" as those who made this vast world mind possible by hardware software

        Incidentally this is recursive of a parallel natural philosophy evident that the Music Industry is now an unnecessary step for music to flow through musicians and be distributed as communication, enabling the musician as individual to provide himself a living reasonable to his talent. Yes, it's been seen that a musician can distribute his music for free and gig for $$ with wondrous potential for growth in direct ratio to his ability to utilize a playing field superior to old distribution/profit/business models. Outdated thinking is always superseded by bigger, better faster...well ,duh!

Re:Brilliantly Written (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034640)

While it is bad form to append ones post. I wish to point out that the above contains a vast run on sentence. I have, as a kindness left it unfinished so as to
convey the jist and maintain the emotional content of the rant, whilst sparing the reader the longevity of the read and leaving the wonderful taste of the gist of it all on the tip of their tongue.

Napster/RIAA (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38034644)

That the RIAA made a big stink about Napster in the early days is what caused it all.

Until that happened hardly anyone in the general public knew it existed. The concept of getting 'free music' wasn't even in their minds, until then.

Way to go RIAA for creating your own nightmare. Unless that was the goal, get it on the radar, then demonize it via the media and pay for legislation in a preemptive strike. ( that backfired... )

Re:Napster/RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38036788)

p2p would have gained popularity anyway. All ideas start out small - and gain popularity. I was into mp3s when they were posted to web pages (before p2p really existed) - it evolved into Napster. This was just the next stage of evolution.

AC

Fixed fee.. no piracy (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036466)

Just make everything over 6 months old available for a reasonable fixed subscription price and you will have no piracy, have simpler accounting (like when long distance calls became less expensive to give away unlimited than to track the calls).

$20 a month for all songs that have been out 6 months.
$20 a month for all books that have been out 6 months.
$20 a month for all movies that have been out 6 months.

You could probably push one of those categories up to $30 or $40.

You might miss some on the high end (cable people paying $120 a month) but you pick up a lot on the low end (who now pirate or do without). The current model is crazy.

There is a high benefit to being able to reliably use this model. I don't have enough room in my house to keep all the dvd's books and cd's. I've been getting rid of them for the last five years.

Get everything you can before it shuts down!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38036772)

Every few years, THIS TIME they are REALLY going to stop all file sharing once and for all THEY MEAN IT THIS TIME. Every time, file sharing explodes as people get all they can before it ends. The explosion ends with more file sharing than ever as people explore new ways of sharing files. These crackdowns, which are announced with a LOT of media fanfare but never seem to actually happen, have done as much as anything to spur on the explosive growth of file sharing. If you knew file sharing was going to end tomorrow, wouldn't you grab everything you could today?

I disagree (3, Insightful)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38036996)

False. File-sharing started because there was no legal alternative. If something like iTunes had existed in the early days, people (including me), would have used it. When iTunes finally did come along, it had a nasty DRM. If it had been open, more people (including me), would have used it.

Recently, I have been seeing more and more artists offering their music on their website without DRM and without a label. This makes me so happy, I usually buy their entire discography (if I like the music of course). It is trivial to offer music on a website, and I imagine artists have realized that people are much more willing to pay for something when they know their money isn't going to a record company.

As for the litigation, that is just the noisy death throes of a once powerful industry, angry about becoming obsolete. It has had zero effect on my behavior (and I read Slashdot), and certainly hasn't affected most people's reasons for file-sharing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>