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!

EFF Ad Campaign On File Swapping

simoniker posted more than 11 years ago | from the let-the-music-play dept.

Music 501

miladus writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is launching an ad campaign to counter the RIAA's lawsuits about file swapping. There are more details available at the File Sharing: It's Music To Our Ears subsite." The press release kicking off this campaign says that "EFF's Let the Music Play campaign provides alternatives to the RIAA's litigation barrage, details EFF's efforts to defend peer-to-peer file sharing, and makes it easy for individuals to write members of Congress."

cancel ×

501 comments

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

Shouldn't that be... (3, Informative)

Victor Liu (645343) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334346)

the Electronic Frontier Foundation?

Re:Shouldn't that be... (1)

missing000 (602285) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334372)

Yeah man the Electronic Future Foundation is so 19th century...

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334349)

says it

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334388)

In Soviet Russia, IT FAILS YOU

copyright was always broken (0, Flamebait)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334350)

The internet does not change things. Copyright was and always will be a dumb, illogical idea. It didn't make sense when the printing press ruled, and it doesn't make sense now.

Re:copyright was always broken (0, Troll)

BrianGa (536442) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334356)

You obviously have never produced anything of merit, which you might wish to protect.

I make the occasional huge shit log... (0, Flamebait)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334380)

But otherwise I don't produce ideas, because NOBODY produces ideas. They exist outside of time. Ding-dong.

Re:copyright was always broken MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334615)

how the FUCK does the parent post, a bald assertion without so much as a flea's ball of supporting evidence or reasoning, qualify as "INSIGHTFUL?"

MOD PARENT DOWN.

Theft (-1, Flamebait)

jbottero (585319) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334352)

One of these days all you students will have to leave the nest of school and get real jods that pay real money for your work. Then perhaps your view of what is copyright theft will change?

Re:Theft (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334367)

Oh shutup and download a spell checker.

Re:Theft (-1, Offtopic)

jbottero (585319) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334402)

Sure, whatever AnonyMouse Coward...

Re:Theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334416)

Shut up. With a space. Maybe you should take your own advice, eh?

Re:Theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334523)

Phil writes "MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla 1.4 has been released for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is pretty similar to today's Netscape 7.1, which is based on the same code, but lacks Netscape's proprietary features. More information can be found in the release notes. The release can be downloaded from mozilla.org's releases page or via FTP. From here on, mozilla.org's focus shifts to Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird." The official release news is now up on Mozilla's main page, so let the downloading begin.

I don't see what this has to do with the RIAA/MP3 group.

Re:Theft (2, Funny)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334414)

Sure it will. Thry're realize how good a deal it is, like the rest of us working stiffs.

Re:Theft (0)

jbottero (585319) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334422)

How is this flaimbait, suggesting that people's labor be compensated for, that us of one's property is determined by the owner?

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334354)

first post!!!

The best shot we've got... (5, Insightful)

netolder (655766) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334358)

The RIAA/MPAA know how to manage our lawmakers - through their lobbying and campaign contributions. EFF's attempt to mobilize the voters is really the only chance we have against that kind of influence.

Electronic *Future* Foundation? (0, Redundant)

Cpyder (57655) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334360)

I always tough it was the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as it says on the website [eff.org] .

(yes, I know.. offtopic bitching)

Re:Electronic *Future* Foundation? (0, Redundant)

Evets (629327) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334392)

You beat me to it... as I'm sure 100 people have by now.

That's because... (2, Insightful)

rusty spoon (564695) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334361)

"Today, more U.S. citizens use file-sharing software than voted for President Bush,"

So millions of people doing the wrong thing somehow makes it right. I don't think so.

In a democracy... (5, Insightful)

Atario (673917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334375)

...it does.

*HINT* (1, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334446)

The US is not a true democracy. It is a representative republic.

Even better *HINT* (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334527)

It DOESN'T MATTER what type of government it is; majority rules.

If the public vastly outnumbers the law makers, then the law makers govern under the public's implied approval. If the law makers veer too far from public opinion, that's when the law makers get overthrown.

Re:Even better *HINT* (2, Informative)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334569)

It DOESN'T MATTER what type of government it is; majority rules.

If that were the case there would be anarchy in the streets and nobody would pay any taxes. No, sometimes the law is more than the sum of popular opinion for the good of the citizens, whether they understand that or not. Without a stable government telling people what to do it would be chaos.

Re:That's because... (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334395)

So millions of people doing the wrong thing somehow makes it right. I don't think so.

In fact, that's how our representative republic works. At least, millions of people doing activity X tends to make it legal.

Morality is your own business. I couldn't care less what your attitude on that is - you don't have to live my life.

Re:That's because... (3, Interesting)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334417)

In fact, that's how our representative republic works. At least, millions of people doing activity X tends to make it legal.

As an example may I suggest prohibition - drinking was illegal, but that was soon changed when overwhelming public opinion became pro-drinking.

Re:That's because... (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334476)

Who the hell woudl have voted for Prohibition anyways? I just can't imagine anybody wanting to do that.

sri

Re:That's because... (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334579)

2/3 of the voters in 2/3 of the states. That's what's required for an Amendment IIRC.

Re:That's because... (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334485)

In fact, that's how our representative republic works. At least, millions of people doing activity X tends to make it legal.

Hasn't worked for the millions of pot smokers being persecuted in the name of the children.

Re:That's because... (2, Interesting)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334563)

Well eccept in Canada where it is still illegal to traffic and possess large amounts.
But small amounts will now only land you a fine not a criminal record.

Re:That's because... (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334626)

Which shows what our current gov thinks about public opinion, neh?

SB

Re:That's because... (4, Insightful)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334519)

Unfortunately, a lot of powers at be have tried to enforce Morality. Take prohibition for an example, it's a law that NEVER should have passed because it was religious zealots trying to enforce their morals. And when you really think about it, many laws are based on morals, loosely or strictly. Patent law is an example. It wouldn't be right to let people steal my work, so I use the law to protect it. How about the ammendments? It wouldn't be right for us to force our beleifs on other people, so we have freedom of religion. (Did you know G. W. Bush actually had a Jesus day when he was a player in Texas? scary stuff).

Thomas Thoreau beleived as you did, in an expedient Gov't. However, the gov't we have today tries to enforce it's own morals onto other people.

Re:That's because... (1)

rkz (667993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334556)

Jesus day? was it 25th December by any chance?

Re:That's because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334396)

Well, think about it.

Re:That's because... (2, Insightful)

sisukapalli1 (471175) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334430)

"Today, more U.S. citizens use file-sharing software than voted for President Bush,"
So millions of people doing the wrong thing somehow makes it right. I don't think so.

A leap of logic there. It is not about right or wrong of "piracy" that is being discussed here. It is the number of people that would potentially be affected by the aggressive lobbying of RIAA/MPAA.

Re:That's because... (1)

Montreal Geek (620791) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334448)

Well, I would tend to agree with you. Nothing can make GWB's election right, regardless of how many people... Oh, wait a minute... -- MG

Re:That's because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334503)

Someone mod this troll down. dumb shit liberal.

Re:That's because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334536)

Agreed. The part that annoys me: "We need to face the fact that copyright law currently is broken. It is making criminals out of music lovers and technologists."

When it should read: people who are too greedy, lazy, or self-important don't want to obey the law and are getting called on it.

I'm glad they're pushing for a way to get artists their money...but give me a break. They're pandering to the file swappers a bit too much. Just push for a better system, don't brown-nose every l33t dork out there. Still, I appreciate the effort and support the EFF despite my partial disagreement with the textual fodder..

Voting for Bush? (1)

chmilar (211243) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334543)

So yer saying that voting for Bush was wrong? I have to agree there!

Re:That's because... (1)

Zebbers (134389) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334564)

umm actually, its only 'wrong' because of artificial limits placed by copyright. its only 'wrong' because a lot of people once thought it was. alot of people right now must not feel that way. we as a people arent here to support someones business models.

im all for art. im not for mass produced art.

how bout...we go back to the time where your money was made from performing and not from milking something you churned out once.

the whole issue is file sharing is here. NOTHING will stop it. Its like the "war" on drugs. Pointless and fought when a vast majority of people -really dont care-. Its easy to bias a survey...

Do you believe in stealing cds?
Do you believe its wrong to share copies of songs with other people?

And no they are not one and the same.

Maybe cd sales wont be as profitable...so cut the fucking million dollar overhead. its riduculous. Cut the tracks and get out. Sell your cds, perform.

The beast is loose. What are the options...waste TAXPAYER money hunting down people and punishing them for artificial POTENTIAL losses, or give up the ghost and move on.

Maybe there will be no more corporatepop, who cares.

Re:That's because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334585)

So millions of people doing the wrong thing somehow makes it right.

No, it just gets the wrong candidate elected.

Re:That's because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334609)

Millions of people did the wrong thing in 2000, and most of them were "right".

The others were elderly Floridians with out-of-date prescriptions...

There is no short term solution (2, Interesting)

default luser (529332) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334362)

Honestly, the point of groups like the EFF is to proactively seek to change things NOW.

But does anyone honestly believe we will see MAJOR change in the entertainment industry in even 20 years? It takes times for behemoths to fall.

Re:There is no short term solution (4, Insightful)

Soko (17987) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334406)

Remember this quote?

"How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time."

(Aside: If someone could please attibute this properly, I'd be grateful)

IOW, we have to start sometime even if it does take 20 years, and now is as good as any to get change underway.

Soko

Re:There is no short term solution (1)

rekkanoryo (676146) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334429)

You're right--it takes a lot of time for behemoths to fall. This one is probably the worst of all, so it'll probably take 30 years to fall. Even with the slow adoption of digital distribution, it's still going to take virtually forever for change to show up.

Re:There is no short term solution (1)

doublesix (590400) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334443)

It takes times for behemoths to fall
The Eastern Block looked pretty solid all through the 80's. Until 1989. [journalismjobs.com]

Re:There is no short term solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334590)

But does anyone honestly believe we will see MAJOR change in the entertainment industry in even 20 years? It takes times for behemoths to fall.

I imagine it'll only get worse before it gets better. Within 5 years there will be harsh laws with mandatory "three strikes and you're out" style penalities for copyright infringement. More people will end up in jail for copyright infringement than for using drugs.

Ho yes (5, Interesting)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334365)

Our work newsgroups went into a panic when the RIAA announced that they were going to be sueing people.

Amusingly it took them about 30 seconds to get around to Freenet and how it might be worth investigating it.

Evil contains the seeds of it's own destruction as they say - being over zelous with a bunch of basically honest people who like to share some music yet still buy lots has foced them onto a more efficient, totally untraceable (or rather plausibly deniable) network. It's certainly not pushed them towards legal services.

Complications (5, Insightful)

El Pollo Loco (562236) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334373)

I like the Ad [eff.org] .
It's simple, and to the point. However the site with more information [eff.org] is waaaaay too complicated for most people. I've been trying in recent times to explain to people why I stopped buying cd's. Why the RIAA suing for 98 billion dollars is recockulus. But people in general don't understand. And this site is too complicated. People will read it, say wtf is "compulsory licensing" and go back to downloading porn. What we need is a good site with the whole idea explained simply. That would be excellent.

Re:Complications (2, Interesting)

donutz (195717) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334538)

I like the Ad.
It's simple, and to the point.


It is. I can't seem to find a banner ad graphic anywhere on eff.org that I could put into rotation on my website. I mean, I don't have a lot of dollars to spare to join or anything right now, but I can certainly donate some space on my web page to help raise awareness of the EFF and what they're doing...and that could help bring in some more people who do have money now, and who are interested in the issues EFF is advocating.

Has anyone put together a good banner graphic for EFF? Anyone willing to do so? If so...lemme know!

Proper Focus (5, Insightful)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334381)

It's good to see that the EFF is focusing on getting them to create a way to pay people, rather then the usual P2P chant of making the theft legal.

Apple has it right, people will pay if there is a way to do so, otherwise they WILL just steal stuff.

can we just automod these "theft" posts down? (5, Insightful)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334408)

Copyright violation!=stealing. Damn some people are dense. Is it nice not needing hammers around?

The EFF's suggestion for not getting sued is... (0, Troll)

slashmonkey (664188) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334383)

Turn filesharing off.

Plan to make them listen: (2, Insightful)

calebb (685461) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334384)

Congress needs to spend less time listening to record industry lobbyists [...]

...but the lobbyists are the ones taking our senators out for $250 steaks & donating millions of dollars to their respective party. With our current government, we need to convince congress that it is worth their while to listen to us 60 million americans. (FYI, 60M downloads != 60M users)

maybe we could start one of those pyramid schemes where you add your name to the bottom of the list & send $5 to everyone on the list; But we could do this with senator's names on the list instead of our own. Then we just give them a heads up that they'll be getting 10,000,000 $1 bills in the mail over the next 3 weeks & I bet our senators would even go so far as to make a law legalizing w4r3z.

Re:Plan to make them listen: (3, Insightful)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334620)

...but the lobbyists are the ones taking our senators out for $250 steaks & donating millions of dollars to their respective party. With our current government, we need to convince congress that it is worth their while to listen to us 60 million americans.

If you can get those 60 million Americans to vote and make their voices heard to the politicians then no amount of steak dinners and golf outings are going to change their mind. Without votes they are powerless. The only reason they cozy up to the lobbyists is because they are the ones promising that they have control of the public opinion in whatever segment of the population they represent. If politicians start to doubt that then they'll tell them to go to hell in an effort to pander to their constituents.

Names? (3, Funny)

r84x (650348) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334386)

Did anyone else notice that the EFF Executive Director, the person who is trying to encourage file sharing, is named Shari Steele? I cannot think of a a better name for a person defending sharing, Except Mr. P. Too Pee, that is.

Re:Names? (4, Funny)

sisukapalli1 (471175) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334473)

Did anyone else notice that the EFF Executive Director, the person who is trying to encourage file sharing, is named Shari Steele? I cannot think of a a better name for a person defending sharing, Except Mr. P. Too Pee, that is.

Unfortunately, there is also a Steele attached to the name, providing enough ammunition to the *AA. S

MOD UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334583)

That is fucking hilarious, I didn't even think about that!

get it on tv... (3, Insightful)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334394)

from the looks of this - it appears EFF is going to be running newspaper and magazine ads. wrong place. these need to be made into 30 second television commercials, where a much wider audience can be reached.

Re:get it on tv... (2, Insightful)

Avsen (556145) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334477)

Actually -- I would even suggest banner ads. Though banner ads have been proven to be ineffective, alot of people might actually click on one that talks about their IT rights.

Re:get it on tv... (0, Redundant)

illuvata (677144) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334518)

but adds in TV are really expensive.

Re:get it on tv... (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334533)

yeah, so? is there a price on your rights?

Re:get it on tv... (1)

illuvata (677144) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334549)

does the EFF have a limited budget?

Re:get it on tv... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334546)

I have Charter as my asinine cable company. Amidst the dumb ads they run from time to time (the list includes "why digital cable is better than satellite," "free basic installation, who decides it's basic?" etc) is one that features a man getting arrested for "stealing cable." The ad says, "you thought it was such a great idea." To date, it's the most offensive thing I've ever seen on TV. The ad talks to me like I'm a cable thief, instead of a paying customer (I'd slap a dish up in two seconds (that's almost about how long it takes to install) if I could. I'm in college).

The reason this issue pushes so many buttons is that the RIAA is starting from the assumption that everyone is illegally trading files, and the lies they're telling along the way just rub salt into the wounds. I wish the RIAA would put advertisements on TV. Everytime I hear one of their talking heads, he sounds like a condescending jerk. It's infuriating. These people have inserted themselves into the entertainment culture as the protectors of all things art, and they're trying to fuck over the computing culture...I can't even put it into words properly.

Re:get it on tv... (1)

brodin (200847) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334586)

Where I'll just skip it with my TiVO. Which will then tell the EFF I skipped it which will get me some spam which my filter will delete. Problem solved!

Bzzt...Wrong (4, Interesting)

Auckerman (223266) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334399)

"The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders."

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is flat our wrong. There are SEVERAL music services that allow one to download music, burn it to CD, carry it on portable players, and the like. I use two, emusic and iTunes (which appearantly is going to be available for Windows this year).

I get the feeling, that music "sharing" people are only interested in a service if it costs NOTHING. If that is the case there will NEVER be a way to pay artists, since noone wants to pay. Get of your ass, quit downloading music you didn't pay for, and quit bitching.

Re:Bzzt...Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334474)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is flat our wrong. There are SEVERAL music services that allow one to download music, burn it to CD, carry it on portable players, and the like.

Yes, and how many of them compensate artists?

Yeah, the music companies get their blood money, but I'm guessing that none of it reaches the artists.

Re:Bzzt...Wrong (1)

Auckerman (223266) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334545)

"Yeah, the music companies get their blood money, but I'm guessing that none of it reaches the artists."

iTunes Music Store is available to very small labels and even artists via CD Baby [cdbaby.net] . There have also been some reports that artists get a MUCH higher percentage on the downloaded music from Apple than from CDs. E-Musics market model is a bit fuzzy and quite frankly, I'm fascinated they haven't gone under yet.

Regardless, this is nothing more than an excuse to break copyright law, because you don't like how artists are treated. If you feel civil disobedience is the way to go on this issue, more power to you. Make no mistake though, you are breaking the law when you distribute via some p2p network music you don't control the copyright to. Don't be surprised if you get sued. I won't feel sorry for you.

The problem with emusic and iTunes (4, Insightful)

geekwench (644364) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334592)

Both services are fairly new, and neither offer much if anything (at least that I've been able to find) in the way of the indie / alternative stuff that comprises a good 75% of my music library. Now if you want the latest BritTinaKira clone, FillInTheBlank Boys band, or long established musician / group with huge fan base and equal clout, you're good to go. For the up-and-coming, however, there's not much that will allow you to hear before you buy, unless they get tapped to provide a song for a car commercial. (One big exception being MP3.com Of course, you'll have to wade through a lot of chaff to find the wheat, but you always do.)

My point is that file-sharing and file-swapping serve a legitimate purpose. The RIAA would serve the interest of its affiliated artists far better by finding a way to legitimize file-swapping as a form of promotion, instead of trying to nail Kazaa users for offering a years out of press Bowie live club track for download. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no getting him back in. But he can be harnessed and put to work in a positive way. The RIAA needs to rethink its business dynamic in a big way. Online music libraries for legal download can only help matters in the long run.

Er... (1, Troll)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334400)

Ok, my understanding was that the RIAA's "campaign" against peer-to-peer (the one they recently announced) was directed solely at those redistributing copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holders, and then only if they were doing so on a large scale. I don't recall seeing anything in the RIAA's campaign against fair use - ie people swapping music with friends, people loaning music, people redistributing works with the full permission of the copyright holders, etc, etc.

So WHAT exactly is the EFF campaigning against? If it's campaigning against the above, and suggesting that people should be able to redistribute the works of others without the permission of the people who were responsible for us having those works in the first place, then how is this going to make the EFF, technical community, and peer-to-peer advocates look in general?

Unauthorized copying is like... (2, Insightful)

frankjr (591955) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334401)

Making an arcade machine give you free games. After all, you didn't take anything tangible away from the owners.

Re:Unauthorized copying is like... (4, Insightful)

default luser (529332) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334510)

Bad reference. Copyright violation ( in truth ) would be playing a ROM you do not own using MAME.

Your reference is flawed because the arcade machine is OWNED by somebody, and if an arcade machine is on free play that's their problem.

Either they're being very generous, or they realize what you're doing and kick your ass out on the street.

In truth, electronic music/movie distribution HAS NO COLLARY because it is a system that has no personal enforcement, and thus encourages people to take advantage of the system.

You cannot easily go into a record store and walk out with an album, it's very likely you will be caught by the owner. But you can go online and download the album and burn it, with little likelyhood of prosecution.

Direct supervision keeps theives in check, and keeps honest folks honest. Indirect supervision is a field-day for theives, and tempts honest people.

WHY IS EVERYONE SO SURPRISED AT THIS? Just look at the percentages of people who violate speed limits whn nobody's looking versus the number of people who violate speed limits WHEN COPS ARE SPEED TRAPPING, and you'll see similar numbers.

I thought it was well understood by companies, after 20 years of trying to MAKE COPY PROTECTION WORK. If there's a link in the chain you cannot supervise personally, somebody is going to break it.

EFF wants alternatives to the current system (5, Insightful)

Traa (158207) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334403)

For those of you who do not feel the need to RTFA, and might easily take the slashdot story the wrong way, here is the important part of what the EFF is after (Paragraph 2 on the the EFF site):

The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders.

This is quite different from the 'illegal-file-sharing-rules!! the RIAA-sucks!!' idea I got from the slashdot story. I very much agree and support the EFF in this effort. Give the artists what they deserve, give me what I want and stop artificially inflating the music prices.

Re:EFF wants alternatives to the current system (1)

isomeme (177414) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334559)

The weird thing is, with services like Rhapsody and the iTunes store going strong, why is there any controversy about this anymore? Why aren't all the labels rushing to hop onto the gravy train?

I've been using Rhapsody for many months and haven't downloaded an illegal track since getting the service. But there are big gaps in their catalog (generated by uncooperative labels) that are tempting me back onto the path of eeeeeevil. Wouldn't they be better off throwing their whole catalogs onto Rhapsody (or iTunes, or whatever) and collecting more money from more people? Why do we have to beg and cajole the RIAA and the record companies to do something so seemingly beneficial to them? Is there a business downside to online music that I'm missing? Is the record industry really controlled by a shadowy cartel of CD and jewel-case manufacturers, or what?

nice (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334411)

Kudos to the EFF on the campaign, but it would have been that much cooler if they had gotten 80's house legend Shannon [80smusiclyrics.com] to record PSA spots promoting the campaign and reprising the famous tune.

Democracy is a facade: The elite run things (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334420)

Coyright reform will never happen. Our bill of rights is "tolerated" by the elite, but cheangeable
at thier whim. When it comes to intellectual property the elite class will put its foot down and
not budge an inch. To reform copyright and patent law will take away control from the elite class, and
they will not allow any such reform to happen.

File Swappers (1)

ad0le (684017) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334427)

"Today, more U.S. citizens use file-sharing software than voted for President Bush," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann.
Looks like the forgot to count the Florida votes again.

Also on their agenda... (5, Funny)

Peterus7 (607982) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334428)

Kidnapping maidens (Hilary Rosen), plundering,(Well, stealing songs off CDs), killing,(Well, hacking the RIAA's website), sailing,(the net) and getting drunk.

It's about time Pirates started acting like them.

Re:Also on their agenda... (1)

Sri Ramkrishna (1856) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334628)

I shudder to think that anybody would consider Hilary Rosen a "maiden". It's like saying a succubus is an angel.

But I jest. I'm sure Hillary has plenty of redeeming characteristics. Just think what our power would be if she turned to the Light side. (well the grey side..I'm cynical about the light side)

sri

File Sharing: It's Music To Our Ears (0)

macshune (628296) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334433)

This to me sounds pretty loaded. At first glance I took it to mean that the EFF is happy that massive copyright violations are taking place. I like free music as much as the next person, but this statement makes the EFF's thoughts on p2p sound more controversial than they really are.

If we called it a more accurate name .. (0, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334464)

If we called "file sharing" and "file swapping" something more accurate, like File Stealing. Then people couldn't go around pretending to be ignorant of copyright issues.

You can argue that there are free things out there that people can swap, but I've never actually seen them personally.

Now BitTorrent, that's another matter, that's not really file swapping/file stealing. It's an infrastructure to redistribute data in a scalable way, and often you can get stuff like RedHat ISOs and things off it. Very handy.

Generally I have no sympathy for college students who cry about getting fines for stealing thousands and thousands of copyrighted works.

It is more imporant to lobby for less evil copyright laws and promote the rights of the public to have access to material and remove the focus on private ownership of everything. Oh no, I better be careful before I come off sounding like a communist!

Eric Eldred Act [eldred.cc]
[duke.edu]
Center for Study of Public Domain

Troll, troll, troll (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334629)

Stealing is a crime, you can go to jail for it.

Copyright violation is a tort, you can be sued for it.

There is a difference.

Hmm. (3, Interesting)

Zigg (64962) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334470)

Yes, copyright is way out of whack today. (Personally, I'm for 20 years, and 5 for software with mandatory source code escrow.)

Yes, the content producers want to take away fair-use rights. (Meaning format-shifting, not what's commonly referred to as "file sharing" -- which is just unauthorized copying.)

Yes, it is true that spreading music files around can help lead to sales. (This is only right to do when the copyright holder authorizes it.)

Does that somehow make sharing copyright-protected material right? Most definitely not. I hope the EFF doesn't send the wrong message here.

Countering the suits against the infringers is exactly what should not be done. The copyright holders are finally doing the right thing by going after the actual infringers, instead of the service providers.

Getting rid of RIAA (2, Insightful)

SolidGold (86023) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334475)

The music labels do add value. The thing that makes a song popular is not that it is good, it is because it is promoted. Of course not every promoted song becomes popular, but as a general rule, a song must be both promoted and decent in order to become popular. Being a good song only gets a very small minority of songs popular.

If we got rid of marketing, then it would perhaps be a good thing, but it would drastically change the face of music. Everybody would be looking for different songs, or would not know which songs to look for, whereas now everybody looks for only the most popular songs.

Perhaps there should just be a general ISP charge (1)

Peterus7 (607982) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334487)

You know, have the ISP provide you with a file sharing service that networks with all the other ISP's file sharing service for an extra 10 bucks a month (if cable/DSL) and free if you use 56k (because the chances of you successfully downloading anything are... Well, not as good as with the higher bandwidth.)

Then this money would go to the RIAA or whatnot. Maybe if they pursued some sort of campaign like this, they might make more money, because a lot of the people who are supposively 'hurting' the RIAA by using P2P instead of buying CDs weren't planning on buying CDs anyways. And then there are those who pirate an album, then buy it so they can listen to it in their portable cd player (instead of just buying a .mp3 player with the money they'd save on not buying CDs...)

Solution to P2P poisoning (4, Interesting)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334492)

Current P2P systems are being hampered by deliberately corrupted files, as well as music companies joining the network to get evidence against users.

Solution:

1) create new protocol for P2P sharing
2) patent that protocol (in as many countries as possible, or at least all those that the xxAA operates in), ideally giving the patent rights to somebody like EFF
3) release code/client with a patent license that prohibits the behavior above

If the RIAA/MPAA/xxAA violate the patent, charge them with DMCA or patent violations.

Just a thought... the DMCA can work both ways, you know.

MadCow.

Signatures? Paranoia? Terms of Service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334581)

That doesn't sound like a good idea.

How about digitally signed releases rather than sharing (something very roughly like freenet's insert or konspire2b's channels, but probably more like PGP signatures)? Group reputation ensures quality. Some sort of review system is needed.

As for poisoning the network, well technically, assuming script kiddies get on it, you really need to make it attack resistant. RIAA aren't your only enemies. Make the network not trust its own nodes - a "paranoid" distributed hash table, for example. I've seen a couple of designs for this sort of thing in research groups, it's starting to awaken some real interest. I've even had a play with prototype clients, although none of them are really usable yet.

You don't need the DMCA for this sort of thing, either. Think of it like this. You may not be able to enforce an EULA... but can the p2p network itself have Terms of Service that prohibit connecting to the network in order to damage, hinder or inhibit the network infrastructure?

Just throwing around ideas I overheard here...

Re:Solution to P2P poisoning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334596)

Umm, this wouldn't work.

You can't patent a novel way to commit crimes. Your patent wouldn't hold.

But thanks for giving it the old junior-high try!

Re:Solution to P2P poisoning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334630)

You can't patent a novel way to commit crimes. Your patent wouldn't hold. The tobacco industry did.

For Non-American Readers (3, Funny)

WC as Kato (675505) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334496)

Rather than trying to sue people into submission...

Suing is the American way! Hey, you don't like it? Sue me.

60 million users, headed in the same direction.... (1)

Nemus (639101) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334505)

So basically we've decided to /. Congress. Groovy, but before we do, someone get me a video camera and point out Orrin Hatch. This should be good >=)

So what's the problem??? (1)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334524)

"...EFF will also place advertisements about the Right to Share campaign in magazines such as Spin, Blender, Computer Gaming World, and PC Gamer. . ."

First of all, the EFF is not going to convince anyone by placing ads in those magazines. It's like preaching to the choir.

Second, we have no "right to share" if sharing infringes on someone's copyright.

I say if the RIIA wants to sue people who are breaking the law by infringing on their copyrights then let them. These people knew, or should have known, that it was illegal.

If you don't like the law then work to change it. If you choose to ignore it be prepared to pay the price.

It's a democracy... so... (4, Insightful)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334528)

In a democracy the public should have a right to determine what is publicly acceptable and legal and what is not. Certainly where somewhat in excess of 50% of internet users are trading copyright files (and yes, I do know that it's an unrepresentative sample of the population) and no person has a qualm about swapping some CDs with friends (Can I borrow that CD? no, it's copyrighted. Ha, as if.) the law is probably outdated and should be reconsidered.

If the EFF can mobilise popular support to legalise file sharing, at least on a limited level (so keep it illegal, say, for commercial pirates or profit making entities to copy music), then I would be all for it. You opinion might be different, which is why I hope that more voters agree with me ;o)

hm. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6334539)

As obvious as it may sound, I would argue that most people download music simply because (1) it's a helluva lot cheaper (iTunes or Kazaa) and (2) it's much more convenient than to trek down to a store then sift through how many albums hoping that what you want is there.

The RIAA pisses me off not because of their "Stop stealing our music" stuff (which I agree with) but more importantly that they seem to want to stifle any technological advances that affects their music UNLESS it's spearheaded by a big player such as Apple.

Instead of them suing everyone and his mother I'd RATHER see them try and figure out a good way to let people get access to music online for a reasonable price - what the EFF is doing. So hurrah for the EFF! It's been forever since I've bought a CD and a solemnly refuse to do so until they (RIAA) become reasonable.

- utterly annoyed

I thought p2p was validated in court? (2, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334565)

First p2p is legal and this is not what the RIAA is going after. They are going after individual mp3 pirates in their most recent legal rampage. Yes they tried to go after the p2p networks but failed. They are now going after the users.

Swapping mp3's is illegal and unethical. Not to be flamed but the RIAA did offer an alternative via itunes. At .99c a song their is no execuse.

The RIAA is still bad of course but they are reforming. I agree that they have the right to go after big time pirates who make up %85 of piracy. Its that or go after the p2p networks which I oppose.

I can not wait for the new itunes store for Windows. I want the RIAA to know that this is acceptable and the only way to do that is with my dollars. I withheld purchasing cd's for 3 years now and also voted with my dollars. The RIAA just cares about the money. Nothing else.

finally - discourse re artist compensation (2, Interesting)

Sodade (650466) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334574)

The reality is that we (the techno elite) should be responsible for building a workable solution that would allow artists a way to make a living (not make a million). The old guard (RIAA et al) was terminally flawed and we engineered a consumer revolution. I think that is great - yay us! Our government failed to protect the consumer from evil corporations (as they always will until we find a way to take money out of politics) and we stood up for ourselves (and even joe/josephine sixpack) and showed that we really aren't as powerless as the media scares us into beleiving we are. Unfortunately, like most revolutionaries, we didn't build a sustainable new way. If we build compensation into the system and it makes good artists successful, then the artists will come. There are plenty of unsigned acts out there that are better than the crap the corps are selling, but they are all trying to get signed because it seems the only way to make a living. We're so smart and leet - we should be able to figure this out.

just tax shit (1)

hpavc (129350) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334599)

why dont they tax a bunch of shit like they did with blank audio cassettes to offset piracy. like 10% of cdr's and 1% of hds or something silly. maybe 10% of broadband service or something.

then we can listen to the arguments about how the cd music production costs are just as high as they were the day they came out. and how there isnt any room for lowering their costs.

Copyright & Sentience (4, Funny)

whig (6869) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334601)

The network will become fully sentient soon.

All the indications are clear. Within 10 years time, the consciousness of the people comprising the communications of the planet are combining into a common intelligence.

It is not only predictable, it is now inevitable. Just as Moore's Law predicts the doubling of circuit density every 18 months, the doubling of communications links proceeds at a geometric rate.

Copyright will fall to the network. The intelligence of the network is directly proportionate to the number of unique voices to which any individual may hear at any time. Copyright imposes a cost to hear each voice, as this cost reduces to zero, the entirety of the connected human population will hear one another, at will.

When this happens, a new Renaissance will flourish. Art will be promoted on quality, not on its profitability to the distributors. For if distribution costs nothing, there is no incentive to promote the latest Britney Spears album to the masses of people who do not know any better.

When you can hear anything, you will want to hear the best music you can find. Friends will recommend to you what they enjoy, and you will be able to listen at once and form your own opinions.

Artists will prosper under the new system. People will gladly pay people to produce quality, to perform, to entertain and enlighten them. And without the middleman distributors, 100% of the money going to such things will enrich the artist.

This is the new world, it will be here soon.

The only problem I see is... (1)

wizardmax (555747) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334604)

... that the most important part is missing from the page, how to help! I know you can join EFF and that helps, but people are (mostly) cheap (like me, being a student and all). A link that said "How to help" with links to petitions and draft letters for government officials would be instrumental and would look more like an effort then just 'give us money and we will do this' type of thing.

Insanely Stupid, or Deviously Brilliant? (1)

flacco (324089) | more than 11 years ago | (#6334627)

Insanely Stupid: Discredit a premier electronic freedom organization by (apparently) sanctioning copyright violations, bringing on further anti-freedom legislation and negative press.

Deviously Brilliant: Use a subject of intense interest to draw publicity and possible membership and funding to a premier electronic freedom organization.

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>