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!

RIAA Bits

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the no-drm-required dept.

Music 319

HardYakka writes "The New York Times writes that record industry executives who are adamant that file sharing is stealing are not above stealing themselves." The NYT also has two other stories on file-sharing today: one with emphasis on musicians, and an opinion piece about the internet. Also floating around: this humor piece and an EFF petition.

cancel ×

319 comments

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

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956206)

First post rn

google link: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956209)

google link to article [nytimes.com] :-) [goatse.cx]

+5 informative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956214)

:) +5 informative

Troll-less link (0)

theTerribleRobbo (661592) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956295)

*Sigh* [nytimes.com]

GOATSE REDIRECT WARNING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956318)

This fucker put a goatse redirect up!

Oh for crying out loud... (0)

theTerribleRobbo (661592) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956349)

Do you get off on this? You be having no life, yes?

No 'yo mamma' jokes either, please.

Re:google link: (1)

Via_Patrino (702161) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956377)

The other link ":-)" is discusting, and the correct link to the nyt article is on: #6956295

BTW, why the links to the google news isn't posted with the article itself, it's aways posted and tagged informative.

Re:google link: (1)

PedsDoc (529974) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956447)

Can I just say that linking to a copy of an article is rather amusing given the content of the article in question?

Stealing by the RIAA (4, Interesting)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956212)

The news these days is filled with stories of stealing by the RIAA.

What else can you call people being forced to give money to the RIAA through the use of threats?

Re:Stealing by the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956239)

You could also call it the legal process...

The Legal Process (4, Interesting)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956255)

Here's a bit from a song "Pretty Boy Floyd" which says it all about abuse of the "legal process":

"Now as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen."

Re:The Legal Process (1)

phthisic (684413) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956268)

Just in case anyone wants to know, that's by Woody Guthrie.

Re:The Legal Process (1)

xsbellx (94649) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956276)

Somewhat like the line from "The Godfather" (book not movie):

"One lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than 100 men with guns."

Remember McDonald's frivolous lawsuit (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956252)

I know how we can defeat the RIAA. Go to their main office building and ask to see someone. Make sure to take the coffee they offer you. Spill it in your crotch. Sue the RIAA for a million dollars.....

Re:Remember McDonald's frivolous lawsuit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956309)

Here's the truth about the "frivolous" McDonalds lawsuit:

-The coffee was 40 degrees hotter than most other restaurants keep it - close to the 212 degree boiling point.
-A national burn center had issued a public warning not to serve hot beverages over 135 degrees.
-There were 700 other burn claims against McDonald's before this injury, yet no action was taken.
-The victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to settle.

Read all about it here [mattenlaw.com] .

The truth about frivolous lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956385)

"The coffee was 40 degrees hotter than most other restaurants keep it - close to the 212 degree boiling point."

So? This was how the customers wanted it. 700 complaints of too-hot out of millions of cups sold. That's low. Now that the coffee was made colder, they get lots more complaints about the coffee being too cold. And, no, it was no where near the boiling point.

"There were 700 other burn claims against McDonald's before this injury, yet no action was taken."

No action should have been taken.

"The victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to settle"

Rightly so. This was extortion, and McDonald's had no reason to pay, as they were not at fault.

Your facts and falsehoods do not change the fact that this lawsuit was frivolous. We need tort reform so cases like this never waste the court's time. If you spill hot coffee on yourself, you only have yourself to blame.

Re:The truth about frivolous lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956492)

Your facts and falsehoods do not change the fact that this lawsuit was frivolous.
The jury who heard all the facts in the case disagreed. I would have too. There was no reason to serve coffee that hot, while people expect to get minor burns when spilling hot coffee, nobody expects to get burns requiring $20,000 in medical bills. And since when did "customers want" coffee that was that dangerous?

Ambulance Chasers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956393)

"Read all about it here [mattenlaw.com]."

Matten Law is a firm that enriches itself in frivolous lawsuits. Nothing they say should be believed unless you check it against facts.

Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA] (4, Interesting)

Sphere1952 (231666) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956274)


Just to be technical.

Stealing is taking by stealth. Robbery is taking by force. Extortion is taking by threat (Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage).

Re:Stealing by the RIAA (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956347)

Extortion?
Attempted barratry? :\

Suicide? :D

-uso.

GNAA FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956213)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by linuxfreak [tubgirl.com] , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim.

I think Minnie Mouse is sexy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956218)

I think Minnie Mouse is sexy. I especially love it when you can see her bloomers. I spend countless nights downloading photos of Minnie in Disneyland from Japanese sites (you know the Japanese people take lots of photographs, LOL). Does that make me a pervert?

I know you think I'm joking, but I am being serious (if disturbing and offtopic), I just wanted to let other Minnie Mouse lovers out there know that they are not alone.

Google link (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956222)

-1 REDUNDANT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956235)

it was posted above

no more NYT on /. (-1, Flamebait)

trolman (648780) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956223)

How about a thread on "no more NYT stories on Slashdot?"

Irony... (3, Insightful)

mgcsinc (681597) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956224)

While I like the irony implied, of the music industry's hypocrisy in accusing file-sharers of stealing when they, in fact, are stealing themselves, I think the two ideas of intellectual property stealing do not mesh quite so easily. The file-sharing theft usually committed is one of profit-deprivation; users download and share for personal enjoyment, depriving the industry of sales money. The theft committed by artists, publishers, recording studios, authors, and the like in unauthorized use of other's works in their own, as much as it may be argued to be a form of innovation, aims to boost one's own profits. This difference, while alleviating some of the irony of the situation, does not paint the industry in any better of a light...

hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something new? (3, Informative)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956293)

I just wrote a piece for Salon critiquing the file-sharing rhetoric [salon.com] and it was published simultaneously with a response by the EFF [salon.com] .

If you're not a Salon subscriber, you can click the free 'day pass' link for the full articles.

Personally, I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems, and less about how the RIAA is the Great Satan.

Re:Irony... (1)

VertigoAce (257771) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956296)

I take it you didn't get to the second page, then. An executive at a music company was caught with a copy of a $895 research report that he had gotten from another studio. He had been talking to a guy at the company that wrote the report and had been less than eager to explain how he got a copy of their report.

Re:Irony... (2, Interesting)

Echnin (607099) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956298)

I think this was the interesting bit:
But the process still had some hurdles to get over, Mr. Bernoff admitted. Recently he was discussing his research with an executive at a media organization that has been very aggressive about trying to discourage file-sharing. When Mr. Bernoff asked the executive how he had gotten the report, which Forrester [the organization at which Bernoff works,] sells for $895, the man hesitated.

Re:Irony... (5, Funny)

dmayle (200765) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956302)

Yes, but you've got to realize that the theft alluded to by the Slashdot story, as explained in the article, was that of a record executive getting a copy of an analyst's report without paying the $895 to Forrester to have that copy. If a song valued at ~$1 (observed price for an electronic copy of a song from iTMS) is worth $150,000, then Forrester should sue the record executive for $134.25 million dollars! Let's see how the RIAA like a taste of their own medicine!

Re:Irony... (0, Redundant)

KDan (90353) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956314)

Did you read the second page of the article? It mentions how some media company executive got a report from Forrester Research by copying it from some other studio. Forrester Research sells the report for a good healthy 800 bucks. If that's not profit deprivation, I don't know what is.

Daniel

Re:Irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956381)

While his use of language might make for a less direct argument, you share similar sentiments.

Executive Summery: RIAA steals to make money. Downloaders don't.

Re:Irony... (2, Insightful)

Snaller (147050) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956474)

The file-sharing theft usually committed is one of profit-deprivation; users download and share for personal enjoyment, depriving the industry of sales money.

File sharing is not theft, precisly because it is not a given conclusion that anyone is loosing money. Filesharing is a copyright violation.

Most people just treat it like radio, and just like you don't buy EVERYHING you hear on radio, they don't play to buy everything here. Money lost is insignificaiton.

The theft committed by artists, publishers, recording studios, authors, and the like in unauthorized use of other's works in their own, as much as it may be argued to be a form of innovation, aims to boost one's own profits.

While they are not stealing either, and also violating copyright law, it is somewhat closer to stealing since they are directly profiting by it.

Birds of a feather (3, Interesting)

Vyce (697152) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956225)

And the other: Takes one to know one. I mean, come on, these people would sell their own mothers (or at least it seems) to make themselves a dollar. They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights. They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best. (And this makes the thing above seem all the more curious.) They steal from the distributors, in the form of very low margin on CD sales. So...this whole thing isn't that surprising to me, or anyone I hope, it's just business as usual.

Re:Birds of a feather (3, Insightful)

dirk (87083) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956294)

Let's look at these "thefts, shall we.

They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.

They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it. Some people find the price for a "mediocre" CD (which just means one you don't like, apparently other people do like it, since they are willing to pay "exorbitant" prices for it) to be a fair price. This is shown by the fact that they are willing to pay for them.

They steal from the distributors, in the form of very low margin on CD sales.
Last time I checked, the music industry has no say in the margins of distributors. They set their own margins. In fact, when the music industry tried to force distributors to set higher margins (which would keep place like Best Buy from selling CDs at cost and hurting the music only and small mom-and-pop shops), they were sued and lost.

I fail to see the RIAA stealing from anyone. They are doing what anyone in business does, they are taking what they can. If the artists would stop being so incredibly greedy and signing bad contracts because they think they might make billions of dollars, they wouldn't be locked into bad contracts. If the consumers really though the cost of a CD was outrageous, people wouldn't buy them.

Re:Birds of a feather (5, Insightful)

KDan (90353) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956335)

They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.

That is only part of the story. The musicians have little choice about it, seeing as the big labels have a practical monopoly on distributing music - hell, they own most of the small labels too...

They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it.

Yes and no, again. The consumers have no choice to go and buy xyz CD from another label who doesn't charge exhorbitant prices. If they did, maybe they wouldn't be downloading so many songs off the internet... fyi I don't buy CDs (haven't bought one for about 4-5 years). Saying that music is not a necessity is irrelevant. Who gave the record companies the right to decide who can listen to what? WE did. And we can take it back. And we are taking it back. And they can sue all they want, that's the way it is and they'd better get on with it.

Daniel

quote from the article... (5, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956226)

For example, you can't prosecute someone just for producing "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life."


We need tighter legislation NOW!

Re:quote from the article... (1)

Gorny (622040) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956241)

Please... lets first go after the people behind Duke Nukem Forever...

Re:quote from the article... (0)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956292)

The legislation will be done "when it's done."

Re:quote from the article... (1)

The Real Chrisjc (576622) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956490)

The commodore 64 version is teh win!
You tried it yet?

Re:quote from the article... (1)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956271)

For example, you can't prosecute someone just for producing "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life."


We need tighter legislation NOW!


Or tighter outfits for Ms. Croft :)

Re:quote from the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956348)

Or less outfits :-)

Hrmm (3, Interesting)

acehole (174372) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956228)

Congratulations RIAA keep up the good work, I hope you proceed to the next level which is taking the elderly out into the middle of a street for a public stoning from unsellable cds.

Perhaps putting children to work in your cd factories might teach them that each song they steal is worth not the 1 cent it's pressed on, but thousands of dollars.

Who the... (-1, Flamebait)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956230)

Why do people routinely submit NYT articles?

Why are there laws that say I can't kill people, even when I have an excuse?

Re:Who the... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956421)

I don't understand why anybody even reads the NYT anymore now that we know they routinely make up stories. They've lost what little credibility they ever had.

Note to all: If you can't find a story from a reliable news source, DON'T POST! And that means you, too, Michael.

Something I've never understood... (0)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956236)

cutting and pasting from the Internet is just one part of a broader shift toward all copying, all the time.

If you are copying and pasting your paper like Frankenstein, don't the professors notice that your style of writing and word choice are varying wildly from one paragraph to another?

Re:Something I've never understood... (1)

EricWright (16803) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956395)

Do you really believe that people copying and pasting papers together, like Dr. Frankenstein did in creating his monster, actually understand the concepts of 'writing style' and 'word choice'???

Re:Something I've never understood... (1)

Via_Patrino (702161) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956410)

I bet this guy "cheated" that numbers :) And it's legal to copy small parts of texts.

Re:Something I've never understood... (1)

arthurs_sidekick (41708) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956540)

Nobody's talking about the legality of copying small parts for fair use.

Even if fair use covers simply ripping parts out of someone else's work and inserting it into something you present to someone else as your own, when you do it in an academic paper, is called plagiarism.

Re:Something I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956487)

Not if they ordered their doctorate online...

Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956240)

Between the RIAA and SCO, plus ongoing Microsoft FUD, I think we're starting to see the fraying edge of a maturing "Internet Economy", and some companies are clinging to really ancient buisness models that will not work in this era.

The RIAA member companies failed to get together to innovate a new buisness model when the InterNet came along, and transferred this problem to the RIAA, which became their personal pitbull. Everyone's blaming the RIAA for this latest round of should-be-RICO-prosecuted behaviour by this company, but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?

SCO is *really* the leading edge of "my buisness model failed" along with Microsoft - the pair of them are like the old IBM of the 90's, except instead of the hardware buisness, they're in the software buisness. Remember PS/2's, proprietary hardware, and IBM almost incredulously holding on to a market that was churning out clone PC's by the millions?

SCO & Microsoft are like this - dinosaurs in the software industry that think you can still lock a customer in with a proprietary product and control their innovation path. Take a fresh look @ Microsoft as the IBM of the new millenium and it starts to become clear - Microsoft is nothing more than a proprietary product with a lot of market share trying to protect that marketshare with intimidation and borderline legal tactics.

There's another two boycotts we should tell the Anti-Trust folks about in California & New York enforcing the decree on Microsoft anti-trust actions. Tell them the TCPA and security certificate scheme Microsoft is developing along with LongHorn represent another way Microsoft is trying to deny people access into their code - that "trusted code" argument is reeking all across it.

And could someone please expose how much the US Government spent this year on inferior Microsoft product? I'd like to know how much insecure RPC crap my Congress-critters managed to purchase this year...

Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl... (3, Insightful)

Sphere1952 (231666) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956291)

"...but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?"

For the most part, the people doing the boycotting know very well that the RIAA is a stand-in for the Big Five labels. There is a lot of talk in the various fora about buying from unsigned artists and independent labels.

Some are even pointing out that Sony et. at. sell other things besides CDs, and suggest boycotting the entire company.

Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl... (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956326)

Really? Ancient business models failing? You mean the one where I produce something for a certain cost and then I sell it for cost + profit? I could swear most of us take part in that model at least once a week. Well at least those I presume are capable of typing. It is called shopping.

Of course this ancient and still going strong model is based on a certain principle. Namely that is a substantial part of the cost of the item being sold is the production of the item itself. So that producing X times the number of items will incur X times the cost or at least close to that. Although cost per unit tends to go down as the number of units goes up this is not a steep curve nor for that matter an infinite one no matter how the charts look. If it was then at a certain number of units the cost of production would fall to zero. Perhaps even go negative :)

What is outdated is the idea that this model applies to all things being sold. The technologies that made the internet possible have allowed some of the basics behind the cost of producing items to be changed. If it costs me X to produce a digital product then it doesn't cost me X*number of items. The cost of material and production capacity that ensures the rather smooth curve in the normal world is gone. Really the only thing keep the cost from being zero is the cost of distribution wich are low for digitals products.

Producing a billion or a thousand digital items makes no difference. This is new. Also new is that distribution costs are pretty much equel no matter the distence. I now have a truly worldwide audience. Compare this to the rather limited distance a product like say milk goes.

So for digital products a number of changes have occured.

  • Cost of production of a single item is pretty close to production of an infinite number of items. This is because we can make an excact copie of it without loss at neglible costs.
  • Cost of storage has plummted. Where in the normal world I have to store every item made a digital product needs to store only 1 item, the original. www.kernel.org holds only 1 copy of a kernel at a time. Not one for everyone who uses linux.
  • Related to the above, no cost for unsold copies. Every copy made is "sold".
  • Neglible transportation cost. Try sending a letter to the other side of the world. It will cost easily as much as the material itself. Now send an email. Further more the costs don't increase with distance (well not so you notice, again try sending an email)

there are lots of other differences but I think these alone make for the fact that we now can have a different business model. And that is the problem. Not that the old model is obsolete. It still works fine for products that are produced in the old way, no negative meaning being applied to old btw. What the record companies and for that matter most content suppliers have failed to realize that theyre products can use a new business method.

The silly thing is that music sharing is profitable for quite a number of companies. These are called ISP's and the telecoms. They make a bundle out of programs like napster. Or do you really need DSL/t3 to send email?

I for one am still waiting for the following. Every "record" store gets a computer with a couple of outlet points (cd burners firewire connections and such), some terminals, a big HD array say 1 terrabyte (very cheap if you use IDE, it doesn't have to be fast) and a connection to a central network (doesn't have to be the internet for security).

Then all that is needed is for every music owner to catalog their music and make it available on the central network.

I then browse the catalog in the shop and make my selections. Popular songs are already locally available while others are taking from the network, perhaps stored in a cache, and my selection is then burned or put on an mp3 player etc. I then pay the shopkeeper the fee.

Seems a simple enough solution. The shop has every piece of music ever sold on a wide variate of media on a very small floorspace.

The music owner has world wide distribution at a low initial cost. No need to press a thousand cd's if you want to be seen in a thousand stores. Nor are there going to be any unsold copies you paid for.

We get every piece of music we want for sale. And it could be amazingly cheap because of the savings the suppliers can make.

Of course I am just a silly small furry creature with no business sense.

skip the registering, here is the piece (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956243)

The week the music industry brought suit against 261 users of Internet file-sharing services, Donald L. McCabe was in St. Louis to talk about a different form of digital copying. Mr. McCabe, a Rutgers University professor, has made a career of studying the cheating of American high school and college students. His most recent study found that cheating was spreading almost like file-sharing. Of more than 18,000 students surveyed, 38 percent said they had lifted material from the Internet for use in papers in the last year.

More striking to Mr. McCabe, 44 percent said they considered this sampling no big deal. Because the Internet makes it easy to copy information, he said, "it's made it much more tempting."

"I'm not sure it's shifted values yet," he continued. "But for a lot of students, it's heading in that direction."

In fact, for many people, that shift has already come. Like file-sharing -- which 60 million Americans have tried -- cutting and pasting from the Internet is just one part of a broader shift toward all copying, all the time.

Consider a night out in the wireless city: Throw on a faux-vintage sports jersey, grab a bootleg Prada bag and head to the Cineplex for the sequel to a movie based on a television show. Afterward, log on to KaZaA and download the movie's title song, based on a digital sample. While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends. Curl up with a best seller by Stephen E. Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin, who last year admitted to slipping materials from other texts into their books.

Most of these activities would have been difficult or impossible a generation ago. They differ widely in their legal and ethical implications. (For example, you can't prosecute someone just for producing "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.") But together they suggest a broad relationship between new technology and a value system that seems shaped to it. In a nation that flaunts its capacities to produce and consume, much of the culture's heat now lies with the ability to cut, paste, clip, sample, quote, recycle, customize and recirculate. It is tempting to ascribe the Culture of the Copy to college students, but its values run deeper. The United States economy shed 44,000 manufacturing jobs last month, continuing a long-running trend away from production. Since the 1980's, when liberalized trade laws made it easier to "outsource" manufacturing to subcontractors in the developing world, companies like Nike or Tommy Hilfiger have competed in what Naomi Klein, in her 2000 book "No Logo," described as "a race toward weightlessness," in which production is a hindrance, not an asset. In the brand market, value lies not in making things but in copying one's logo onto as many of them as possible.

D.J.'s, file sharers, handbag cloners, student plagiarists and some bloggers simply do what brand companies do: they reproduce work made elsewhere at lower rates, adding their own signature and mix. A popular brand that is often imitated is the goatse.cx man. The legal ramifications may be different, but the action is the same.

"The quintessential American company was Enron, which made nothing," said Neal Gabler, author of "Life the Movie." In today's culture, he added, "the product is almost immaterial; it's the consciousness about it."

"What the Internet does is, it pries everything out of moral context and lets people feel knowing about it," he said, because the skills used to cut and paste something with a computer are more valued than those used to manufacture it.

"In a sense, Internet technology is a metaphor for the new morality. As long as you can get it, it doesn't matter how."

On a recent morning on anal Street, crowds of shoppers, most past their undergraduate years, brought the metaphor to life, plucking up fake Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Kate Spade handbags. A New Jersey woman named Linda Dorian, plumping for two bootleg Vuittons, compared her purchases to downloading music. "Somehow everybody seems to be making out," she said. "I don't see any poor rock stars. I don't see any poor designers."

Besides, she added, buying the fake is cooler, just as Grokster, a file-sharing program, has a cachet the Wal-Mart CD counter cannot match. "Shopping for copies is getting to be a trend," she said.

As technology has produced a new ecology of copying, it has pushed into uncharted territories of ethics and the law, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of "Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity" and director of communication studies at New York University. He said he has had 10 percent of his students turn in whole papers copied from the Internet, not realizing that he could Google them into big trouble. "We're coming up on 10 years of widespread use of the Internet," he said. "We should have better discussions of a code of ethics for dealing with these materials. The rule of law will always incompletely and perhaps negatively affect the Internet."

Nearly 70 years ago, the critic Walter Benjamin addressed the aesthetic limitations of the copy in a famous essay about photography and authenticity, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Benjamin argued that even a perfect copy lacked the contextual meaning of the real thing. Since then, postmodern critics have developed dense theories of simulacra, bricolage and pastiche that could daze a tuna at 20 paces.

Now the bricoleurs are living next door, and they look nothing like the monographs said they would. "Somehow I don't think it comes from avant-garde theory," said Louis Menand, author of "The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America." The KaZaA community can burn "All About the Benjamins," the song or the movie, without the endorsement of Walter.

"They wouldn't say it's all a simulacrum anyway," Mr. Menand said. "If they could say that they wouldn't need to copy their papers online."

In the current universe of the copy, the looseness of context is everything. Most users of music file-sharing services do not copy the products for sale by the music industry. While the industry sells albums, artificially shaped to the capacities of their commercial format, LP or CD, file-sharers tend to rip songs.

As their favorite musicians recombine digital samples to create new music, downloaders recombine digital songs in new contexts.

Advertisement

"I don't think they think of it as copying music," said Joe Levy, deputy managing editor of Rolling Stone. "It's a very individual experience for them. Similar to the first time you stick a finger up your ass. They want the songs they want in the order they want. Then it becomes not the new Mary J. Blige album, but their own mix. It's a much more individual package of music. Kids view it as an interactive and creative act."

Betsy Frank, the executive vice president for research and planning at MTV Networks, who studies young TV and music audiences, said the people in her focus groups tended to describe copying as an assertive act, a way of navigating a media environment that bombards them with information -- some good, some bad, most of it a little of both. "They can rationalize downloading music or term papers extremely effectively as using their skills to select what works for them," she said.

The law, of course, will inevitably catch up. When rap acts started sampling James Brown records in the 1980's, complaints raged that they were violating copyrights and the principles of art. In a Bronx home studio in 1987, the producer Jazzy Jay described the law of the copy: "The laws on taking samples are, You take 'em until you get caught."

Two decades later, musicians usually pay for their samples, and the aesthetic argument -- that sampling was theft, not music -- has quieted. Now sample fees are part of the business model, and no one seems to worry about whether it is art.

At both stages, value judgments about copying followed technology and money, not the other way around.

In the culture of copying, technological considerations have trumped ethical ones: if you upload it, they will download.

LAST week's lawsuits against file-sharers are an attempt to get the public to treat copying not as a question of technological possibility or moral implications, but as a threat to the wallet. A study by Forrester Research found that 68 percent of burners said they would stop if they thought they might get in serious trouble. As in sampling, the moral questions should follow the financial ones, said Josh Bernoff, the principal analyst covering media and entertainment at Forrester.

But the process still had some hurdles to get over, Mr. Bernoff admitted. Recently he was discussing his research and fondling his testicles with an executive at a media organization that has been very aggressive about trying to discourage file-sharing. When Mr. Bernoff asked the executive how he had gotten the report, which Forrester sells for $895, the man hesitated.

"They got a copy from one of the studios," Mr. Bernoff said. "Here is an organization that's saying that stealing hurts the little people, and they took our intellectual property and they shuttled it around like a text file."

The aesthetic fallout of all this copying will be harder to sort. In a culture that assigns diminishing value to production, can copying really fill the void? The hypothetical night out involves many aesthetic decisions but little that can be called art.

Mr. Menand noted that his students who downloaded papers from the Internet often picked mediocre work, perhaps thinking it would be less noticeable. The availability of obscure, non-Britney music on KaZaA -- one of the justifications cited by users -- has done nothing to stop Hilary Duff, the overpackaged star of the "Lizzie McGuire" movie and series, from having the No. 1 album in the country this week. If this is the democracy of the copy, it is enough to make one long for the elitism of creative genius.

Ms. Frank, the MTV executive, noted the limitations of unlimited customization, even amid unlimited access. For young Americans, she said, "because of the way they've trained themselves to use media, they never have to be exposed to an idea, an artist, or anything that they did not select for themselves."

Ruth La Ferla contributed to this article.

Re:skip the registering, here is the piece (2, Funny)

Crimplene Prakman (82370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956282)

Illegally copying a copyrighted article about illegally copying copyrighted articles.

Oh, the irony.

WARNING (2, Informative)

ccarr.com (262540) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956319)

The parent is not a faithful reproduction of the original article. The mostly correct, the poster has seen fit to insert references to certain recurrent off-topic themes which, if made more explicit, would certainly earn him a -1 moderation within seconds.

huh? (4, Funny)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956247)

"In a sense, Internet technology is a metaphor for the new morality. As long as you can get it, it doesn't matter how."

I don't get it.

A web log from your colon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956286)

"Colon's American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]"

Someone's colon is posting a web log? Now I've seen everything. Emphasis on "log".

Re:huh? (2, Funny)

Snaller (147050) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956484)

It doesn't matter.

Filesharing != Stealing (5, Informative)

besfred (699432) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956249)

via http://www.unix-girl.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_ id=1130 Comment by insin http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thumbs_aloft/ffi/ffi1.htm To summarize it: - Filesharing is copyright infringement at best, which is a civil offence ("at best" meaning, if you forget about fair use and stuff like that) - Stealing is a crime The above link contains some rude words, but is to the point.

Re:Filesharing != Stealing (1)

dirk (87083) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956307)

And filesharing isn't sharing at all. At best it is copying. Sharing means there is one object, and only party can use it at a time. This is copying, where every person gets a new copy and no one loses the use of their original copy. IF your going to bitch about precise definitions, please use ALL the correct terms, not just the ones that make your arguement look better.

Re:Filesharing != Stealing (1)

pla (258480) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956355)

Sharing means there is one object, and only party can use it at a time.

So you never read the sunday comics with a friend, at the same time, effectively sharing a single copy of them?

You never watched a rented movie with your family, SO, friends, or whatever, thereby sharing a single limited resource (ie, the movie)?

I will agree that "filesharing" means "copying", but, "IF your going to bitch about precise definitions, please use ALL the correct terms, not just the ones that make your arguement look better." ;-)

Re:Filesharing != Stealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956408)

To both of you, the word you want after IF is you're, not your!!! Let's try to use all the right words, as well as definitions! Sheesh...

Oh, and it's argument, not arguement.... :-P

Why not? It'd be better... (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956331)

Perhaps we would be better off if filesharing was stealing. Think about it: I leave my property (the files) on my server, unprotected by any lock (similar to me leaving my bike in the garden without any lock). Let's say for the sake of argument that you come along and steal it. Here's what happens:

- I cannot be prosecuted for "filesharing" since I am myself a victim of theft. There's no law saying I have to secure my bike, and similarly there is no law saying I have to secure my server.

- There is no way for the record companies to get involved. They are not a victim in any way.

- You can only be prosecuted for stealing that one album, worth maybe 25 euro's or so.

Looks good, doesn't it? Let's campaign for filesharing == theft in the future...

Re:Why not? It'd be better... (1)

vrwarp (624266) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956427)

Then put a lock on it. Also, taking the bike and filesharing is completely different. Filesharing as many other people said, duplicates the file. Stealing on the other hand takes the object and deprive another of it.

Time to take matters into our own hands? (5, Insightful)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956251)

The EFF petition is a move in the right direction, but does it really make a difference? What is it that keeps the RIAA going? It's the fact that people still buy music from its members. Why do people buy this music? Because they want to listen to it. Because there is a demand.

Breaking the law is bad. But so is working to take away our rights. The RIAA is an organization which exists to work for record labels, in order to maximize profit. It is basically an organization which works for the industry, against the customer (or "consumer" which we are today).

Perhaps it is time to take matters into our own hands and really strike them where it hurts the most. If they don't make any money, they can't afford lawsuits and lobbying to take away our rights as individuals and as customers. They cannot spread lies about P2P and other useful technologies.

If as many people as possible spread music for free as much as possible, fewer would buy music. That's right, we are fighting this fight by breaking the law. We are trying to force the RIAA out of business.

A normal argument from RIAA apologists is that it is "morally wrong" to "steal music". I would say that the only morally right thing to do is to fight for one's rights! And this fight must be taken on a number of levels. From nice petitions that most likely will not make a difference, to breaking the law. Standing by and accepting that one's rights are taken away is a true sign of a "morally challenged" individual!

With several angles of attack, maybe the RIAA will eventually disappear.

RIAA should realize that tor many people, this is war. And wars are dirty. But it would benefit everyone except the RIAA members if it died, including the artists!

Would it be a good thing to form an organization with a single purpose - distribute as much as possible for free to prevent money from ending up in RIAA members' hands? The RIAA is already spreading lies and deception, so we don't really have much to lose do we?

Re:Time to take matters into our own hands? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956261)

Come to think of it, there are actually signs that the good fight is getting dirty. The EFF petition uses the 12 year old girl as a "tool" to show everyone how evil the RIAA is. But the fact is that the girl did break the law.

Don't get me wrong, though. I think it is perfectly fine to appeal to people's sense of decency by using dirty tricks, such as this 12 year old girl being used to trigger emotions of disgust against the RIAA - even though they are technically right according to the law.

But maybe this needs to be taken further. Maybe we need to spread lies about the RIAA. Sure, the truth is more than enough to people who inform themselves about this, but the RIAA is using things like child pornography to outlaw P2P technologies. So we need to lie too. If we can get away with making people believe that the RIAA is really an organized child porn syndicate, we should do it!

Right?

Re:Time to take matters into our own hands? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956272)

Maybe we need to spread lies about the RIAA

This method has a proven track-record in the war against drugs (and terrorism).

Re:Time to take matters into our own hands? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956310)

It *is* war -- ultimately, it's a war about what sort of culture we want to have. The American model of capitalism has gotten out of hand and become disconnected from the values which most Americans share. Somehow it's become not just acceptable, but actually morally right to pursue greed and corperate profits at any social and cultural price. Anything can be justified (including many insane new laws) if it helps rich people get richer. I think we're already starting to see alot of backlash towards this sort of thinking. I find myself almost unconciously trying not to support the big corperations like walmart, disney, etc... Why provide support and encouragement to people who would sell me, my family and my community down the river for ten cents?

Re:Time to take matters into our own hands? (2, Informative)

J-B0nd (682712) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956329)

I think that a bigger threat to the RIAA is LEGAL internet distribution, because they cannot interfere with it at all. I recently discovered the Open Source, cross platform project iRate Radio, a service that distributes free songs that the Artists want distributed. Check it out at The iRate Homepage [sourceforge.net] and programmers, please contribute to make it better! Once people discover independent music, they are much less likely to go back.

Re:Time to take matters into our own hands? (1)

phidiot (211304) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956485)

Sounds like time for another Boston Tea Party, only using CDs this time.

Re:Time to take matters into our own hands? (1)

dmayle (200765) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956542)

It is not immoral to break an unjust law. Law is not morality. And to those who would argue that most people use the law in place of morality, I ask you this: How many people do you know that have conscience attacks when crossing the street away from an intersection, or when the light would not allow them to do so? Just like with jaywalking, people fashion their own rules and morals based on their interactions with others, and not based on law.

I'm not advocating anarchy, I'm just trying to point out the reality of the situation. People do what they want to.

In the U.S., it's damn near impossible to get a law removed from the books (just ask the woman in Michigan who isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission. [jailhouse-rock.net] )

Because of this, I say to all of you, go on breaking this unjust law. Encourage the behavior in your friends and family. Act as if this is the most ridiculous thing in the world (as it is), and hopefully in twenty years time, or thirty, someone will publish the RIAA asininity in a list of dumb laws from long ago...

RIAA Detention Centers (4, Interesting)

TrollBurger (575126) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956257)

Hey, the humour piece on the RIAA detention centers was pretty funny, but its really not that far from the truth. For over a decade and a half now the US government has been setting up and maintaining fully operational detention centers all throughout america.

There were estimates a few years ago that the capacity was over two million. Part of me doesn't want to know what their capacity is currently.

The camps were set up as a part of operation Rex84 (search [google.com] ) in the 80s, established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Now that the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II move to establish anyone that breaks any law as a potential terrorist, it makes you wonder what they've got planned...

There's a lot of info on the net about these and other operations. A lot of the websites play the 'paranoid' card a little too strongly (*cough* alex jones*cough*), but I highly recommended you check out available info!

Some links:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm [apfn.org]
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html [abovetopsecret.com]
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/concentration.htm [mindcontrolforums.com]
http://www.c0balt.com/egg/insane.shtml [c0balt.com]

I'm not trolling, this is some serious shit, America!

Black Helicopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956277)

"I'm not trolling, this is some serious shit, America!"

Is whether or not you think it is serious somehow proportional to how many layers of tin foil you have in your hat?

I know about these detention centers. There is one in my neighborhood. Those sneaky bastards: they made it invisible. I think Elvis is the warden, and they are using it as a hotel for Martian tourists in order to make money before they have to fill it with Americans.

Re:Black Helicopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956303)

I know about these detention centers. There is one in my neighborhood.

Cool, so you'll be like the German citizens who failed to let themselves believe that the soot coming from the buildings over there is actually bodies being incinerated. Surely it couldn't happen to us! Well, you don't sound like the 'thinking' type, so Ashcroft probably won't bother with you, its only the people with half functioning brains that they're worried about at this stage. Idiot.

Tinfoil hat alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956403)

"Cool, so you'll be like the German citizens who failed to let themselves believe that the soot coming from the buildings over there is actually bodies being incinerated. Surely it couldn't happen to us!"

Just because it can happen does not mean it is happening. There has to be evidence. Imagination just does not cut it.

"Well, you don't sound like the 'thinking'"

No, I am the "critical thinking" type. Discernment. Logic. Try it sometime.

"so Ashcroft probably won't bother with you"

He hasn't bothered anyone except for terrorists. It is a myth that the Patriot Act damages civil liberties. Far more harm has been done by the recent Campaign Finance Bill, which says that the First Amendment does not apply if you are criticizing politicians.

Re:Black Helicopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956456)

I'd rather have tin foil in my hat than have it in my head like you, my friend. Close your eyes or hide your head in the sand and before you know it, BOOM!, you're living in a dictatorship.

Re:RIAA Detention Centers (1)

EugeneF (695358) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956504)

And after that you can check out some of the other stuff at abovetopsecret, namely the alien plots and their news section.

why don't they just stop downloading the songs? (1, Insightful)

polished look 2 (662705) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956258)

In my opinion, the RIAA has every right in the world to see that their material is not passed around illicitly and quite frankly I don't see why anyone has a problem with what they're doing.

Take a hint: pop music sucks. Go on with your lives and stop listening to it so much.

Pop music does not exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956263)

"Take a hint: pop music sucks. Go on with your lives and stop listening to it so much."

It really doesn't exist as a type of music: the term "pop" is a vague term that has something to do with how much it sells. The music type is really rap, rock, disco, hip-hop, etc.

Re:Pop music does not exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956467)

Agreed. Except that rap and hip-hop are not music. All they are is chanting to a beat. Where's the music?

Re:why don't they just stop downloading the songs? (4, Insightful)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956287)

The RIAA is a cartel set up to protect the interests of the music industry. It exists only to push on those in power to make sure more money flows into the industry. It spreads lies and deception, such as trying to link P2P and child pornography.

The RIAA exists for the music industry, against the customer. It sees us as a means to increase profits, and rather than adapting to a new world, it tries to lobby for laws that take away our rights.

That they are right in protecting what they can according to the law, they are not right when they fight to take away our rights and use FUD and scare tactics to keep an outdated industry alive.

The RIAA was convicted of illegal price fixing wasn't it?

Those with a sense of common decency have a problem with what the RIAA is doing. The RIAA is trying to become the judge, jury and executioner. It is trying to take away our rights.

As I wrote elsewhere, it is time to go to war. The RIAA fights dirty. Well, so can we.

Re:why don't they just stop downloading the songs? (2, Insightful)

besfred (699432) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956301)

A problem might be that people get that pop music shoved down their throats everywhere they go.
It is really hard to avoid getting brainwashed by that easy-listening music.
It starts from early ages (think "Barney's Dino Dancin Tunes"), you get used to simplistic melodies.
Later, you being a teenager, everyone at school talks about the latest top hits, ... You will become an outsider if you can not talk about these topics.

Sounds abit like conspiracy theory, but theres some truth in it. Also think brands in clothing.

registration free links (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956280)

...courtesy of google: not above stealing themselves [nytimes.com] musicians [nytimes.com] internet [nytimes.com]

Please, submitters - take a few seconds to look up these links - it'll save those of us who block cookies and/or are always on public computers and so loathe having to reregister for every single story (for whoever remembers their password for throw-away accounts?) quite a bit of time.

Re:registration free links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956333)

somebody mod this up please?

only post so far with registration free links to all three NYT articles

Re:registration free links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956481)

SOMEBODY MOD PARENT UP!!!

If you're tired of posters linking to sites that require registration, I implore all /.ers to IGNORE the whole topic. Don't post replies; let it die a well-deserved death.

New pirate born (3, Interesting)

computerlady (707043) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956281)

I'd never, ever downloaded music nor accepted a copy of a CD from a friend until the RIAA started issuing the subpoenas.Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes the second wrong (the RIAA actions) piss off the honest folks so much that they side with the original lawbreakers.

I wonder if anyone else, like me, has been driven to a life of crime - or at least a life of acts of civil disobedience - by the RIAA goons?

Wrong location (3, Funny)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956300)

  • opening its massive detention facility in the high desert of Movaje, CA

That is on US soil & human rights would eventually be enforced. They should have learned from the US government and located the facility in Cuba, I gather that there is some spare space in Camp X-Ray.

Well, that would have been one way of improving the story!

Re:Wrong location (1)

CaptainPuppydog (516199) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956431)

meh. The RIAA would just have to brand them Terrorists (probably wouldn't be a stretch from their pov), then with liberal application of the 'Patriot' Act they could lock them away w/o charges or telling anyone.

CPD.

Author's rights. (2, Interesting)

Sphere1952 (231666) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956313)

In general, the conversation about P2P misses the constitutional point entirely. Forget about the filesharer's rights and think only in terms of the author's rights. This is purely a conflict between author's rights.

There is music out there which the author wants shared. There is music out there which the author doesn't care if it's shared. There is some music out there which the author wants protected by copyright. The problem is that it is impossible to tell which music is which.

The filesharer is simply a hapless bystander who is caught-up in a legal quagmire. If the filesharers assume the work is protected by copyright then they are infringing the author's right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. If they assume the work is an act of free speech then they might be infringing the author's limited commercial copyright.

The question, then, is this: Ought the filesharer assume the work is a constitutionally protected act of free speech, or ought the filesharer assume the work is protected by an obscure federal statute giving limited commercial protection from copying?

Build tools that sidestep the RIAA (2, Interesting)

linkjunkie (671174) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956515)

And fullfill the authors desires. I found an interesting one at Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] called iRate.
It downloads independent songs and you rate them.
There's more to it, and I recomend anyone who's tired of the RIAA to at least take a look.
Some of the downloads are a little slow, and it's an early version but I've already found some indie stuff I like.

This may be the direction we need to go.
Artists could get feedback and people are exposed to new music (minus the $20 per DECENT song tax;-)

Can we use the law against them and sue them? (4, Interesting)

iconnor (131903) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956336)

If they are happy to download the music to see if it belongs to them, consider the mistake if it did not.
If someone has a name similar to that of their artist (or not), records some copyright material to mp3 and then puts it on the network. The condition is it is free for anyone to download, except the major record labels, their employees, agents, contractors or affiliates. By virtue of their copyright laws, they are not allowed to download it (aka steal it) and are subject to $1500 or $150,000 fine if they do.

All we need to do then is monitor the downloads of this mp3, and then sue the RIAA when they download it. If there is more than 216 of us doing this, then we can easily outweigh their laws and settle this similar to how the large companies settle patent lawsuits, you lower your weapons and we lower ours.

Re:Can we use the law against them and sue them? (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956345)

That's great but do you have enough money to take them to court and win this case ?

Re:Can we use the law against them and sue them? (1)

DigitalReligion (684511) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956375)

But to get them to notice the file and assume it was theirs, you would have improperly name it.

Most likely that would be considered entrapment, however a ruling on that would disallow the RIAA from sharing its own material and suing those who downloaded it from them.

Re:Can we use the law against them and sue them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956501)

But to get them to notice the file and assume it was theirs, you would have improperly name it.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of different songs out there with the same name. Go do a search.

Very dim person (4, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956357)

From the article: "Somehow everybody seems to be making out," she said. "I don't see any poor rock stars. I don't see any poor designers."

From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Everyone was rich and nobody wass poor. At least, no one very important

How does this idiot woman think she would ever hear of the poor (ie, failed) rock stars? In this month's "No Longer Rolling Stone"?

TWW

Re:Very dim person (2, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956434)

the whole definition of 'rock star' makes it so.. if you just follow the rock stars on top, of course they're stinking rich and have fancy cars and everything, it's part of the image record companies wish their upstarts to have(all the 'living a dream iiik this is so cool' journal crap on mtv).

but in reality there have been dozens and dozens of people who have been stars for a while(who recording companies have _owned_) and then dumped out. there's shitloads of ex-stars who aren't rich by any means, some were smart and realized it wasn't going to last forever, some didn't(and got fucked).

however.. being poor at some time or for life time is a risk artists have had to take for thousands of years already(heck, it's also possible to be an artist while you get the most of your money from other sources, like it's possible to be a properiaty software writer during day and by night be writing your gpl'd software because you enjoy it).

luckily some rock 'superstars' realise that they've already have a shitload of money and they can now do anything they want without financial pressure(musically.. some just go nuts like mj), and can go nuts in their tours if they want to and people will come and enjoy the show.

Re:Very dim person (2, Interesting)

anomic_event (518226) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956536)

From the musicians article in NYT:
"Musicians tend to make more money from sales of concert tickets and merchandise than from CD sales."

If we are concerned about whether file-sharing is robbing actual music creators of $ then Read the Musicians article! It speaks of how the musicians themselve rarely recieve any royalties from CD sales.


Time for a change in laws......
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUS I.html?pagewanted=2&hp

I couldn't read the article (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 11 years ago | (#6956399)

Because of that big annoying distracting ad that was larger than the article itself! (btw, the lameness filter is LAME. It wouldn't let me type that in all caps for emphasis) I think I got through a couple of sentences before giving up.

Double standard? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6956527)

What kills me about every RIAA article is that I then turn on my TV to see an ad for a new MP# player from SONY. I wonder how their marketing people are making out with the balance of "Stealing music is bad" and "Buy an MP3 player to listen to Stolen Music" directions that Sony and other companies seem to be taking...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?