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!

UK Record Companies Suing File Sharers

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the now-they-can-share-in-the-fun dept.

The Courts 265

WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, the first lawsuits were filed in the UK against file sharers trading songs." These are the first suits, after many others settled out of court. From the article: "Music fans are increasingly tuning into legal download sites for the choice, value and convenience they offer...But we cannot let illegal file sharers off the hook. They are undermining the legal services, they are damaging music and they are breaking the law"

cancel ×

265 comments

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

Finally a law that has some teeth! (0)

stratjakt (596332) | about 9 years ago | (#13225732)

Get it, teeth?

UK?

Heheh

Who cares. The UK has bigger problems right now than worrying about a bunch of Spice Girl piratez.

(UK people have ugly teeth, and big ears)

Re:Finally a law that has some teeth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225748)

lol, what?

Re:Finally a law that has some teeth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225779)

FIRST POST!

thats what, bub

who cares if they get sued for 100 pesos or rupees or whatever kind of money they use in UK.


Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, slashdot sucks.

A little offtopic (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | about 9 years ago | (#13225783)

The UK has bigger problems right now than worrying about a bunch of Spice Girl piratez.

Why do people say things like this? It's not like everyone is going to drop what they are doing and go after only the absolute most important thing. I would like to know the way that the music industry in any way can help the UK equivalent to the FBI find and stop radicals intent on killing.

/rant

Re:A little offtopic (1)

wizzdude (755000) | about 9 years ago | (#13225816)

Our version of the FBI, SOCA doesn't have terrorism in its remit AFAIK. That comes under the police services and MI5.

But good point.

Re:A little offtopic (1)

stratjakt (596332) | about 9 years ago | (#13225817)

Radicals? Killings?

I was talking about the whole charles and camilla thing.

The UK doesnt have any problems with radicals or stuff like that, because they're better than americans, as they remind us every day here on slashdot.

Re:A little offtopic (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | about 9 years ago | (#13225937)

I would like to know the way that the music industry in any way can help the UK equivalent to the FBI find and stop radicals intent on killing.

In other news today, the RIAA announced that it plans to temporarily suspend its campaign against music piracy and devote its efforts to the search in Aruba for missing teenager Natalee Holloway.

Re:A little offtopic (1)

orangesquid (79734) | about 9 years ago | (#13226065)

Just because someone has bigger fish to fry doesn't mean he doesn't want an appetizer.

If you let copyright infringers off of the hook because there are rapists on the loose, and you let rapists off of the hook because there are terrorists on the loose, pretty soon you'll have to let everyone off of the hook for some reason or another.

Of course, it doesn't make sense to devote large amounts of money to something that's not an important issue at the moment (but making a press release doesn't imply anything about budgeting). For example, (and this is just my opinion here), we're spending too much money on the "Drug War."

Re:Finally a law that has some teeth! (1)

Red Samurai (893134) | about 9 years ago | (#13225801)

UK people have ugly teeth, and big ears I guess you'd know because, of course, you've met all 60 million of them.

Re:Finally a law that has some teeth! (1)

daniil (775990) | about 9 years ago | (#13225890)

The UK has bigger problems right now than worrying about a bunch of Spice Girl piratez.

Exactly. Why isn't anyone doing anything about all the bloody trolls sneaking into the country on cargo ships from Norway?

Re:Finally a law that has some teeth! (1)

Tackhead (54550) | about 9 years ago | (#13226067)

> > The UK has bigger problems right now than worrying about a bunch of Spice Girl piratez.
>
> Exactly. Why isn't anyone doing anything about all the bloody trolls sneaking into the country on cargo ships from Norway?

How's this for a Norwegian troll?

"As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of a Micro$oft shill making a comparison involving Linus Torvalds approaches 1"

("It's got beautiful bridgework...")

Catch me if you Can! (1)

lotsToLearn (797673) | about 9 years ago | (#13225917)

I use BitTorrent!

... thank you Gawd for inventing "AC"

Re:Catch me if you Can! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226111)

:) you do have lots to learn

No, not from the article (2, Informative)

yellowbkpk (890493) | about 9 years ago | (#13225733)

No, that comment was not "from the article". It was "from the Peter Jamieson, the BPI Chairman. Let's not go crediting MSNBC for writing incorrect articles.

Also, here's a link that works in Firefox (MSNBC didn't load for me w/ Firefox): http://www.out-law.com/page-5967 [out-law.com]

Re:BBC article (1)

Ranarama (888143) | about 9 years ago | (#13225951)

Better article (IMHO) at the Beeb [bbc.co.uk]

Re:No, not from the article (1)

ndtechnologies (814381) | about 9 years ago | (#13225957)

This isn't related directly to the above post, but...my question is how much of the money they are making out of suing people, will actually go back to the artists that created the music in the first place? If the record companies have a right to sue file sharers, then the artists should have a right to sue the industry for not giving them a portion of the money that the industry earns from suing file sharers...it's only fair right?

Re:No, not from the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226101)

Let's not forget that WebHostingGuy is a Cisco Systems shareholder and supports censorship [slashdot.org] :
Companies are out to make a profit not a political statement. Investors, i.e., the shareholders, want a monetary return, not a political return on their investment. As an investor in Cisco I would sell immediately if I knew Cisco was going to quit selling to one of the largest markets in existence because they were going to make a political statment.

Haters want to hate, lovers want to love. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225751)

I don't really want, none of the above.
I want to pee on you.

8======D~~~~ ~~ ~

At last!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225753)

A ham radio article on Slashdot!!!! woohoo!

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225764)

Companies actually looking to be paid in a CAPITALIST society! They must be brought down!

Re:Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225850)

Companies looking to be paid OVER AND OVER AGAIN for the same damn work because of a government-granted monopoly on copying. Yes, in a capitalist society, they must be brought down.

Artists should work on commission, and record companies sell CDs at the marginal cost of production. FREE MARKET. FUCK COPYRIGHT.

Artists, should, however have "Moral Right" (recognised in europe anyway) to be recognised as the author of a work. Passing off someone else's work as one's own is fraud and plagiarism. We don't need copyright law for that to be illegal.

Re:Oh no! (1)

Macadamizer (194404) | about 9 years ago | (#13225964)

Artists should work on commission, and record companies sell CDs at the marginal cost of production.

Telling people how they should earn a living and telling a corporation what their profits should be is SOOOOO free market!

They'll never stop us all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225771)

If greed-driven artists and record companies think a few lawsuits can stop the masses from exercising our free right to share media they have another thing coming.

The lawsuits might be coming on strong, but file sharing has been growing steadily regardless. They may have the lawyers, but we have the numbers.

Support Fair Use! In fact, first thing after school today I'm going to go buy a CD, and rip, rar, and torrent it. I encourage everyone else who supports Fair Use to do the same.

Let's show these thugs they cannot win!

Re:They'll never stop us all (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | about 9 years ago | (#13225821)

Any momentum your cause was going to have was hit a brick wall with the line "first thing after school today".

Man, I wish I was 17 again. I could do anything when I was 17.

Re:They'll never stop us all (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 9 years ago | (#13225949)

Support Fair Use! In fact, first thing after school today I'm going to go buy a CD, and rip, rar, and torrent it. I encourage everyone else who supports Fair Use to do the same.

Uhhmm.. That's called "copyright infringement". Fair use (or fair dealing) is a little different. It usually involves not copying and distributing the entire file, and typically involves copying a portion of a work for private use, parody, or review.

Re:They'll never stop us all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226003)

Please, don't rar your torrent. Especially not a torrent full of already compressed files. It's a waste of time, and assholes like to put their fake uploads in rars.

Re:They'll never stop us all (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 9 years ago | (#13226209)

Yeah! Right on! I'm with you!

But first, could you point me to the statute(s) that allow for "ripping, rarring and torrenting" a CD under fair use?

For bonus points, as this is specifically about UK record companies, point out the UK statutes that do the same. (Hint: there aren't any)

You're exactly the kind of person who gives the anti-copyright-excess people a bad name, going too far in the other direction.

sex with ducks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225773)

sex with ducks mutherfuckers!

stick it in their other quack hole!

An Old Proverb . . . (1)

ndansmith (582590) | about 9 years ago | (#13225777)

Music fans are increasingly tuning into legal download sites . . .

When you can't beat 'em, turn into 'em.

Re:An Old Proverb . . . (1)

heauxmeaux (869966) | about 9 years ago | (#13225797)

And if you can't turn 'em, tune 'em.

A wise man once said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225899)

When in doubt, use the fucking spell check.

Re:An Old Proverb . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225992)

Blast the combination of italics, my poor eye-sight, and a flickery monitor!

turning != tuning

Lies and more lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226037)

they are damaging music

What a crock. The music is not being damaged in any way, shape, or form. Music of the quality-level we have come to accept can be just as effectively produced under a profitable model that allows free downloading.

and they are breaking the law

When the laws are unjust, the just must become outlaws.

And yes, these laws are unjust. Or, at best, just really stupid and requiring much injustice in order to be enforced.

Too bad they won't let it go without a fight.

Until they stop this... (1)

aergern (127031) | about 9 years ago | (#13225780)

I won't be buying any of the crap these record companies produce.. they complain about the lack of sales and blame the P2P users. Well, I haven't bought a CD since 2k and I doubt I will.

Note: I don't download their shite either. If it isn't on the radio.. I just won't hear it.

Re:Until they stop this... (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | about 9 years ago | (#13225866)

You mean all the radio stations in your area don't play shite too?

About the only music I buy anymore comes from sales at live performances I go to, or from sites like this one [indie911.com] .

Re:Until they stop this... (1)

caino59 (313096) | about 9 years ago | (#13225924)

don't forget etree.org for live, legal performance downloads.

Re:Until they stop this... (1)

RetroGeek (206522) | about 9 years ago | (#13226063)

I listen to Rock 101 [rock101.com] in Vancouver. Great rock and roll.

You need IE to listen on line though....

Re:Until they stop this... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 9 years ago | (#13225883)

Note: I don't download their shite either. If it isn't on the radio.. I just won't hear it. If it's not on the radio, you won't hear it? That makes the recording company wins too! Because the radio plays exactly those shite!

Damage? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13225793)

Yes, because it's the consumers who have damaged music. It couldn't possibly be damaged by all the crappy artists they've promoted the last decade.

Re:Damage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225963)

"They are undermining the legal services, they are damaging music and they are breaking the law"

Hmmm, thought Michael Jackson was responsible for that one.

Re:Damage? (1)

shark72 (702619) | about 9 years ago | (#13226185)

"Yes, because it's the consumers who have damaged music. It couldn't possibly be damaged by all the crappy artists they've promoted the last decade."

Simple bromides won't cover it. It can be due to a lot of things. Blaming it solely on crappy music is just as naive on blaming it solely on file sharers. Even if piracy is responsible for something less than 100%, this does not eliminate the need to fix the problem. If you're not sure what I'm getting at, think of it as if you owned a retail store. If 10% of your lack of sales could be blamed on shoplifting, 10% on bad products, 10% on high prices and 10% on unfriendly employees, you'd still think about getting that better security system while you set about solving the other problems.

That being said, most pop music has always been mediocre. We tend to put on our nostalgia goggles and remember the good stuff from decades past, but trust me: there was a lot of crap in the 80's, the 70's, and the 60's. Each generation takes its turn lamenting how bad music has become recently. The fact that you've started noticing that music has gotten bad is a sign that you're growing up.

Re:Damage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226239)

So music companies are spending billions of dollars promoting crappy artists instead of highly talented ones because of P2P?

Love to see these go to court (2, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 9 years ago | (#13225798)

I for one would like to see how the "open access point" defense holds up in court, e.g. claiming that you internet connection was through an unencrypted wireless router, therefore ANY of your neighbors could have been sharing those files! If somebody taps into your phone line and then uses it to threaten the Prime Minister, should they come and arrest you, just because you're the one paying for the phone line?

Re:Love to see these go to court (2, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 9 years ago | (#13225878)

Can and will. A great practical joke is while visiting a friends house with kids. Pick up their phone and dial 911, imitate a childs voice and say, "help me my dads touching me in a bad way again." Ohh man it's a hoot. Took them like $6000 and several visits to a court house to get their kids back from CPS.

Re:Love to see these go to court (1)

pete6677 (681676) | about 9 years ago | (#13225889)

I wouldn't want to be the one testing this theory. Sure, it might work, but there's a good chance that certain judges would think it's bunk and hold the owner of the access point responsible. If nothing else, they could say that if you had reason to believe it wasn't secure and still kept it on that you were negligent.

If drug dealers were using your front porch and you didn't seem to mind, you would be an accessory to the crime. It would be a different story if you were out of town the entire time.

Even if the "open access point" defense does work, the access point owner will go through a lot more trouble than it's worth to prove themselves innocent.

Re:Love to see these go to court (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 9 years ago | (#13226117)

Even if the "open access point" defense does work, the access point owner will go through a lot more trouble than it's worth to prove themselves innocent.

But that's just it, isn't it? Although it's starting to look a little tattered around the edges, most western democracies still subscribe to the "innocent until proven guilty" line. Plus, as the Michael Jackson trial showed, if there is a single shred of reasonable doubt then the judge/jury is supposed to return a verdict of not guilty. In theory, this is even supposed to apply even if your personal belief is that the accused is guilty as sin, although perhaps not in practice.

So, by those two legal tenets, the onus should lie on the music industry to prove that it really was you sharing the files, or at least were aware of the sharing going on, as in your drug dealer analogy. If there are no "unauthorized" music files on your PC, nor any evidence that there ever were, then that's reasonable doubt in my book. Even if there were said files on the PC, there is a already a legal precedent in the UK for acquittal in a computer crime case on the grounds that the PC had been compromised and may have been used without the owner's knowledge. In that case, I personally think that the claim was bunk, but even so I'd have to admit that it still would qualify as reasonable doubt in my book and I've have gone for a not guilty verdict if I was on the jury.

Of course, IANAL, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the one testing this theory either.

Re:Love to see these go to court (1)

Macadamizer (194404) | about 9 years ago | (#13226162)

Plus, as the Michael Jackson trial showed, if there is a single shred of reasonable doubt then the judge/jury is supposed to return a verdict of not guilty. In theory, this is even supposed to apply even if your personal belief is that the accused is guilty as sin, although perhaps not in practice.

But the record companies are suing, which means this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Of course, in a criminal matter (in the U.S., at least), you need to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," as you correctly note. However, in a civil case (in the U.S. again), you only need to prove liability be a "preponderance of the evidence" -- in other words, "more likely than not."

So, in the case of the open access point, you only need to prove that it is more likely than not that YOU are the one doing the file sharing -- you don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there are no "unauthorized" music files on your PC, nor any evidence that there ever were, then that's reasonable doubt in my book.

That's probably good enough by either standard.

if there were said files on the PC, there is a already a legal precedent in the UK for acquittal in a computer crime case on the grounds that the PC had been compromised and may have been used without the owner's knowledge.

And while that was clearly enough to raise a "resonable doubt" in a criminal case, it's unlikely that "may have been compromised" would be sufficient to overcome the "more likely than not" standard.

Re:Love to see these go to court (1)

TommyBlack (899306) | about 9 years ago | (#13225930)

Yeah, you shouldn't be running an unencrypted wireless router; if someone uses it for illegal activities, then you are responsible for providing them the tools. Tapping into a phone line requires trespassing on property belonging to either yourself or the phone company; tapping into a wireless router is more like accepting an open invitation to use it.

Of course, on reflection this defense becomes trickier when you're talking about tapping into a wireless phone receiver, but then that's a lot harder than having your laptop automatically connect to an access point.

Re:Love to see these go to court (1)

Radicode (898701) | about 9 years ago | (#13226095)

So, are those coffee shops with free wi-fi are liable for everything anyone does with the connection? What about regular ISP, are they liable too? Are they supposed to track and disconnect users who are doing something illegal?

Radicode

Re:Love to see these go to court (1)

smallfries (601545) | about 9 years ago | (#13226130)

One question that I haven't seen answered in any of the articles about suits against file sharers is where is the proof?

If the ISP's are merely handing over names and addresses to match IP's then where is the proof that these people downloaded copyrighted material? Is it a session from a computer at the record companies premises? I don't see how this constitues a legal proof, surely it is just an unsubstantiated claim. As TCP/IP is an un-authenticated protocol, how can they show that a computer on the network claiming to be address X and offering copyrighted materials, really is address X? Surely the fact that addresses can be spoofed throws any such claim into doubt, so how can a jury find 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?

Unless there is a packet trace from the ISP's premise I don't see how they can prove a thing.

I guess UK really *is* America's largest... (1)

rob_squared (821479) | about 9 years ago | (#13225803)

...non-nuclear aircraft carrier. But in all seriousness, countries that have diplomatic relations with the US will tend to mirror our laws. Canada did it, now the UK, Austrailia. I don't want to hazard a guess who's next though.

Re:I guess UK really *is* America's largest... (1)

Timesprout (579035) | about 9 years ago | (#13225854)

Iraq obviously.

Re:I guess UK really *is* America's largest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225891)

Hey! We're fully nuclear!

Re:I guess UK really *is* America's largest... (1)

shmlco (594907) | about 9 years ago | (#13226206)

Sorry, the UK is really America's largest nuclear aircraft carrier. "The UK currently has 33 operating reactors which provide 26% of the electricity in the UK." source [dti.gov.uk]

Never Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225813)

It has been years since I was even in a record store.

Never again will I spend my money on anything the major record labels produce.

Ever.

Damaging music? (1)

Rodness (168429) | about 9 years ago | (#13225828)

The article accuses illegal downloaders of "damaging music". How does one damage music?

Generally, the mp3 files are posted with excellent bitrates, so that can't be it. Most of those mp3s also don't have random noise superimposed over the music, so that's not it either.

Maybe if they'd stop trying to be so dramatic and incendiary, and say what they really mean: illegal downloaders damage the financial bottom line of the music recording companies.

But that doesn't really inspire the same level of dramatic indignance on the part of the reader, does it? "Holy hell, they're damaging the music! They must be stopped!" versus "Who the hell cares, record companies make too much money already."

Damn public relations spin doctors...

Re:Damaging music? (1)

solive1 (799249) | about 9 years ago | (#13226038)

Agreed.

Downloaders don't damage music. Record companies who spew out mindless crap damage music.

I can't listen to the radio anymore, except to listen to the morning comedy show (Walton & Johnson) and the "classic rock" that the same station puts on during the rest of the day (Led Zeppelin, Beatles, etc.) The "new rock" station spews out the same whiny songs over and over again (Simple Plan and its 300 clone bands) or songs that aren't even rock at all (Gorillaz, I'm looking at you) that make me want to throw up over and over again until I die of dehydration. Every once in a while this station plays something good, but not often enough to keep my interest.

So I'll just keep downloading the good stuff and ignoring the record companies until they start promoting good music.

Re:Damaging music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226127)

But that doesn't really inspire the same level of dramatic indignance on the part of the reader, does it? "Holy hell, they're damaging the music! They must be stopped!" versus "Who the hell cares, record companies make too much money already."

Damn public relations spin doctors...


I believe their rationalization would be that if they aren't turning the profits of legal sales of music that have been used to, they can't finance the creation of the "quality" music they've had in the past. Hence, damaging it.

But I agree. If I had my way, anyone in public relations would be gathered together and gassed.

Re:Damaging music? Easy. (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13226226)

How does one damage music?

Easy. Any level of lossy compression is a damaged version of the original. And if consumers get used to listening to damaged music, and even like it, well bad music will certainly drive good music out.

Then again, it's hard to imagine anything more damaging to music than a circa 1960 era car radio with a 5-inch paper dynamic speaker cone that has baked itself into petrification after a few summers inside a closed up car. Clearly after a couple experiences with that, no one listened to music in the decade of the 1960s any more.

right...so thats were my money goes.. (1)

jonbusby (880488) | about 9 years ago | (#13225829)

ok... so instead of sorting out crime... like the bastards that stole my car stereo, OR LIKE RANDOM BOMBERS... they're going to travel around prosecuting the more legal amoung us that can afford to own a computer sort your life out UK legal system, please dont become another America. At least democracy is still intact here.

Re:right...so thats were my money goes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226151)

"At least democracy is still intact here."

Barely. The government wants to ban certain political parties...

Re:right...so thats were my money goes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226230)

Are you sure it was random bombers? and not, ohhhh, let's say MI-6? or the Mossad? Or some other patsie with plausible deniability? Consider for a moment, that someone with power, has an agenda seeking greater control. If they are cold-blooded, then they may potentially be willing to bomb their own people, if it advanced their agenda. They would possibly even profit via insurance claims on the damage, and/or the rebuilding after the bombing. Pass draconian laws that take away common people's freedom. And you have a recipe for increasing the centralization of power and profit.

Damaging Music? (1)

Daimaou (97573) | about 9 years ago | (#13225853)

I have heard the "damaging music", "hurts the artists", "blah blah blah" arguments from the record companies for what, six years now?

Regardless of whether you think downloading music is right or wrong, I don't see any evidence of all this "damage". So, if you are suing for damages, but there aren't any, then what should the fine really be?

Legal downloads suck (1)

wickho (757672) | about 9 years ago | (#13225862)

I downloaded my first legal song on the weekend. Firstly, the site wouldn't work unless you used IE. That sucked. When I downloaded it, it wanted to update the DRM on WMP and wouldn't play on any other player. Screw that. I deleted the file and copied the song from a mate who has the album. This is a song that came out in the 60's. If this is what legal downloads are about, I wont be using them. Why should I have to jump through all these hoops just so some rich record exec can snort a little more coke. I wont be buying or downloading any music from now on (legal or otherwise)

Re:Legal downloads suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226045)

Legal downloads do indeed suck.

The record companies already presume that customers of these websites are criminals and will not trust them with an MP3 or OGG file. Often times (depending on service), the music will cease to be able to play if the company's servers are offline or if your subscription runs out (i.e. you stop paying).

Who the hell wants to "be legal" if doing so is inconvenient or cumbersome? Its like a big fucking joke.

Damaging music?!? (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 9 years ago | (#13225865)

How could file downloads be any more damaging to music than radio airplay, which the record companies appear to beleive increases record sales, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money paying for airplay! Here these people are providing an equivalent service free of charge, and they are claiming it is "damaging music"? The only way it could damage music is if they use a compression scheme that is too lossy!

What a stupid rationale. (1)

unicorn (8060) | about 9 years ago | (#13226014)

When you listen to the radio, you get to hear a song once in awhile. Not on demand. And it's not a file that you're keeping. Sure you could record off the radio to tape, but the quality would be truly dreadful. So radio, by and large, can function as a marketing channel for labels. If you hear something you like on the radio, the betting is that you'll run out to buy a copy to keep.

With file sharing, you are downloading a copy of the file that you keep. You can listen to the song whenever you want. As often as you want. And in the eyes of the labels, you are far less likely to purchase the album. Why pay for something you've already got a copy of, for free?

Re:What a stupid rationale. (1)

Nossie (753694) | about 9 years ago | (#13226203)

no offence to the parent... but what he seems to forget is that radio stations pay massive amounts of money for licenses and royalties to the 'artist' what license or royalty does the file sharer provide? this is the same thing that hurt the popularity of shoutcast, when the RIAA demanded they bought a broadcasting license from them.

I think both your views are correct... but the above is the main reason -- remember they already tried to tax blank tapes and the kick up about tape recorders back in the 80s.. and that's without mentioning sony or betamax.

Re:Damaging music?!? (1)

truckaxle (883149) | about 9 years ago | (#13226043)

Well the answer is quite obviously there is a fundamental difference between hearing music "pushed" to you on someone else's time frame and owning the song and playing whenever you wish. Which is why you want to own it (either legally or illegally).

Now the issue really boils down to price vs convience. Actually illegally downloaded (or ripped) music is actually more convient because you do not have to deal with rights managment. And the other commercial model of buy music via cdrom is getting inconvient from a storage, cataloging, random access and flexibility of devices to play it.

I think the true model that will appear is cheap legal download that is very convient. So cheap that will not be worth dedicating Megabytes of space and backing up and cataloging etc. Just like it is with movies. Not many people go out of the way to copy a rented dvd or tape because it is to easy and cheap just to rent it again and let someone else store it.
   

I just shared the latest Harry Potter (1)

Catamaran (106796) | about 9 years ago | (#13225871)

I bought it and donated it to the library.

Re:I just shared the latest Harry Potter (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 9 years ago | (#13225909)

I don't know who this Harry Potter person is and how you can buy him, but I am sure he is not very happy that he was 'donated' to the library and will now be shared by every greasy finger library user!

Re:I just shared the latest Harry Potter (1)

stratjakt (596332) | about 9 years ago | (#13225962)

Libraries are where homeless people go to sleep and make BM.
                          - Peter Griffin

Re:I just shared the latest Harry Potter (1)

stratjakt (596332) | about 9 years ago | (#13225910)

Did you make 20,000 exact copies of it and distribute them to anyone who wanted?

Because if you did, I bet the publisher might just have a beef with you.

Your analogy sucks.

Re:I just shared the latest Harry Potter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226044)

His analogy is great.

-Dick J. Ohnson

Re:I just shared the latest Harry Potter (1)

Macadamizer (194404) | about 9 years ago | (#13226078)

His analogy is great.


Why do you say that? Buying a book, or a CD or whatever, has ALWAYS given you the right to share, give away, resell, destroy, etc., that particular copy of the book or CD or whatever.

File sharing is reproduction and distribution -- it's not at all the same thing as giving a book to the library.

legality.... (2, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | about 9 years ago | (#13225880)

Legally, they're right to sue. Morally, i'm not so sure anyone should be charing for music in the first place... It's kinda like making a business selling air.... Something that has always been around and something that isn't ever going away and somewhere someone had an idea to make a profit selling something that should be free...

This is my opinion of course. :-)

Re:legality.... (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 9 years ago | (#13225959)

"It's kinda like making a business selling air...."

Bullshit. A bunch of people went to a studio one day and put in a day's work. You're paying for that specific work. However, you are free to make your own music or get it from people who want to spread their music for free.

Re:legality.... (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 9 years ago | (#13226144)

This is my opinion of course. :-)

And it's wrong. Music takes people time and effort to produce; while they're doing that, they're not using their time for anything else - earning money, building a career, spending time with friends and family, watching paint dry, whatever. That investment of time and talent deserves to be compensated (assuming someone likes their music enough to want to listen to it, of course).

Air is a natural resource that requires no investment of time or money to produce.

Other than that, a perfect analogy...

Re:legality.... (1)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | about 9 years ago | (#13226238)

Except that 99.99% of the bands/artists in the world DON'T live from music. Most of them have jobs.
And yes, the ARTISTS deserve to be paid. Why do I have to pay a RECORD COMPANY for something they didn't do, but rather the artists?
Not only that, but most bands WANT publicity and want their music to be shared, at least until they get rich and cocky. Metallica, before they became so popular, actually motivated people to share their stuff with their friends, for free. Then they saw it's a cashcow that can be milked, and decided money is more important than music.

Next time I'll think about buying a CD, i'll instead d/l the tracks off the net and send the band an envelope with the CD price in cash.

Ah HA! (1)

comicnerd (866351) | about 9 years ago | (#13225882)

"...they are damaging music..."

Ah, HA! So that's who's to blame for mediocrity in the top 40 these past few years: the file swappers!

Bull-poop (1)

Rekrapt (813221) | about 9 years ago | (#13225897)

The powers that be have yet to demonstrate that a "illegal" music download translates into a lost sale... as consumers, we've been encouraged to copy and share music since the advent of the cassette tape.

Collectors collect. People who download music and don't buy the album would never have bought the album in the first place.

I find it depressing... (1)

e6003 (552415) | about 9 years ago | (#13225900)

That the situation has been allowed to degenerate to such an extent here in .uk. I mean, suing filesharers has had no effect on stemming the rising tide of music sharing in the US and now the UK companies want to go headlong down the same path.

A couple of months ago I did manage to get a (heavily edited) letter published in The Times newspaper here in the UK. Although they wanted hard references for many of my points, which I was caught off guard and not able to supply them with over the phone (such as the assertion that file sharing has no effect on CD sales - shortly before the OECD study [harvard.edu] was published that said the same thing) I did manage to persuade them to publish my opinion that the record industry's stance was borne out of a desire to maintain 20th century monopolies rather than anything else. The only followup I saw came a week later from a professional musician who said that he was scared of internet file sharing as well, because he believed he should be paid each time his music was performed, because this is how he earns his living, and this was nothing to do with "a futile attempt to preserve 20th century monopolies" (to quote my original letter).

This got me thinking, and I still am. Half of me thinks this guy is right and that he does deserve to be paid for the performance of his compositions (but EVERY time - insert credit card into CD player before pressing play?) But half of me thinks he is, in his own way, still living in the 20th century.

In summary, music isn't scarce any more and it CAN be copied easily. If our collective governments were wise, instead of letting the 20th century media barons cripple new technology, and force DRM-laden crap down our throats (Windows Vista and Intel's digitally restricted new chips spring to mind), they'd be busy devising new copyright laws that respect the fact that we all have "perfect copying machines" (computers) linked together in a worldwide network. The fact that they aren't says a great deal to my over-active and depressed thought state on this particular subject...

Re:I find it depressing... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 9 years ago | (#13226030)

He doesn't deserve to get paid for every time his music is performed.

What he does deserve is some fair reward for the work he put into it and for the benefit society gets out of it.

At the moment we have a problem. Most people think there's nothing wrong with making a few copies and giving them away. And if they think it's reasonable then they're going to do it, and get angry if they're stopped. Many artists and publishers (publishers include record labels and movie companies here) think that this is costing them money. Publishers need to realise that people are going to do what they want to do, and the law needs to be adapted to accomodate this. The law also needs to be adjusted to allow a fair reward for publishers and artists.

Re:I find it depressing... (1)

Macadamizer (194404) | about 9 years ago | (#13226036)

But half of me thinks he is, in his own way, still living in the 20th century.

Not to be an ass, but wasn't the 20th century only like 5 years ago?

In summary, music isn't scarce any more and it CAN be copied easily.

Music isn't scarce? Then why is everyone always complaining that there isn't any good music out there? Music as a whole may not be scarce, but I suspect that the amount of music worth listening to is a pretty small fraction of the music out there. Shouldn't those who produce something worth listening to be rewarded?

If our collective governments were wise, instead of letting the 20th century media barons cripple new technology, and force DRM-laden crap down our throats (Windows Vista and Intel's digitally restricted new chips spring to mind), they'd be busy devising new copyright laws that respect the fact that we all have "perfect copying machines" (computers) linked together in a worldwide network.

Do you honestly think that if the governments abolished copyrights that the record industry would just go away? Wouldn't it be MORE likely that the record companies would invest MORE money and effort into better and stronger DRM and other non-copying technology, since they can would no longer be able to rely on the courts to help them make a buck? Why does everyone automatically think the the RIAA and others would just throw in the towel if copyright went away?

Re:I find it depressing... (1)

BeBoxer (14448) | about 9 years ago | (#13226146)

Half of me thinks this guy is right and that he does deserve to be paid for the performance of his compositions (but EVERY time - insert credit card into CD player before pressing play?) But half of me thinks he is, in his own way, still living in the 20th century.

All of me thinks he's full of shit. The vast majority of people do not get paid repeatedly for work already performed. They get paid once. The guy who built my car doesn't expect to get paid every time I drive it. The guy who built my washer doesn't expect to get paid every time I do a load of laundry. The guy who designed my car and washer doesn't expect to get paid for every car that gets built. I've said it before. If you want to continue getting paid you can continue working. If you're not willing to do that, you're just a lazy ass in my opinion.

And now Scotland Yard (1)

Exitar (809068) | about 9 years ago | (#13225986)

will obviously stop any investigation about the two attacks to London and will arrest dangerous p2p users instead.

Sue you, Sue everybody (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13225996)

Can I sue British Record Companies for Robbie Williams?

Filesharing the Old Fashioned way (2, Informative)

Goose3254 (304355) | about 9 years ago | (#13226000)

I've not bought a new CD since the Napster decision. When I was downloading songs off Napster I was buying 3 or 4 CDs a week from artists I would have never heard of without Napster.

Now I just go to the used CD shop, buy a CD, rip it, archive it, and then sell it back to the used CD shop.

I gotta think that's eating into the profit margin somehow. The absolute dumbest thing the music industry ever did was to criminalize thier fanbase....

Damaging? (1)

lordsid (629982) | about 9 years ago | (#13226013)

What exactly is damaging about sharing music?

The only damage done is by the idiots who host the corrupted music files to intentionally mess up file sharing.

Re:Damaging? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 years ago | (#13226082)

Well, you see, little boy, in our society we consider that people can have intellectual, as well as physical property. Effort is made into writing, recording and distributing music, investments are made based upon the notion that the investment, plus at least some small bit of profit, will be incurred at some point. When you steal music, you rob all parties involved of profit, and if sufficient music is stolen, then the parties involved could be put in a situation where creating and distributing music isn't worth it any more.

i dont understand (1)

eight and a quarter (904629) | about 9 years ago | (#13226056)

record companies profit off of album sales
artists profit off of concerts


why are artists hurt by P2P?

I had a terrible dream about this... (1)

graveyardduckx (735761) | about 9 years ago | (#13226060)

It was about some foreign person in a subway... he dropped his iPod and put it back together with electrical tape... and got shot in the head for failing to stop when police ran after him. As it turns out, he couldn't hear them because he was listening to some legally downloaded Spice Girls music... I'm afraid to go back to sleep after that.

Lost sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13226083)

So... am I the only one who, when told that a certain company may sue me, doesn't really feel any more inspired to give them my money for the products they're still trying to sell me?

And did you know... (1)

BluhDeBluh (805090) | about 9 years ago | (#13226093)

that the UK buys the most albums per person of any country in the world, at 2.9 albums per person? So what are these lawsuits for, other than FUD?

Why sue people when the country in question buys an insane amount of music anyway?

Source: <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/musi c/4738181.stm>BBC News</a>

Damaging music? (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | about 9 years ago | (#13226110)

"...they are damaging music..."

From what I can tell, the music industry is doing it all by themselves. I turn on the radio these days just to make sure it still sucks (and it does) and ClearChannel is still playing the same damn songs they were 2 years ago. It all sounds the same, lacks innovation, and gives no one compelling reasons to purchase it. I have no idea how pirating the one good song they play on the radio is "damaging music". Aren't they worried that suing their potential customers is only going to make people neither buy music nor even want to pirate it, at which point they no longer have an audience even on the rare occasion something good does come out. These people are absolutely retarded in their mind set.

Did somebody forget... (1)

B11 (894359) | about 9 years ago | (#13226138)

That Rock and Roll was about sticking it to "The Man?"

Seriously though, these companies control development, production, distribution, and marketing of their product. Of course they're going to go after anything that threatens such tight control and "yummy" profits, even the talent and the customers.

Continue not to buy their product, consume it in the way you see fit. Go to live shows, suport the artists directly, and support artists that are independent of the "machine." These record companies will go out of business or figure out a way to continue their business that fits with what we are willing to pay for, such as handcuffware-free ways of listening to music. Once the "hits" marketing machine goes away, maybe music will come back.

And don't listen to commercial radio, that's part of the marketing machine.

Re:Did somebody forget... (1)

shark72 (702619) | about 9 years ago | (#13226227)

"These record companies will go out of business or figure out a way to continue their business that fits with what we are willing to pay for, such as handcuffware-free ways of listening to music."

Unfortunately, the iTunes Music Store has been a fantastically wild success by any measure. They just sold their 50 millionth track and their traffic is still growing exponentially. Apple and the record companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm bemused by people who say things like "the record companies will go out of business unless they give consumers what they really want... DRM-free music!". Apple, Napster and the like have clearly shown otherwise. The music stores that specialize in what you say consumers demand (Magnatune, MP3Tunes, and the like) are floundering.

Forget downloading. Visit your local library (1)

spisska (796395) | about 9 years ago | (#13226147)

My library, for example has thousands and thousands of CDs, with an especially rich collection of jazz and blues but with plenty of fairly recent pop music as well.

You've already paid for access to your library's resources, so you might as well use them. Plus, considering that the American Library Association is willing to stand up to the Feds when it comes to snooping at people's library records, I don't think the RIAA has much chance to see what I've borrowed, and even less chance to prove that I've ripped anything.

I will not buy another CD from an RIAA company as long as they keep up this nonsense, nor will download anything from them legally or otherwise. But those CDs at the library belong as much to me as to anyone else in my county. I do intend to keep using what is mine.

The Real Proof of the Pudding (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13226198)

The real proof will be getting an actual conviction. Proving that it was more than just an IP address sharing the files. Finding the actual computers (diskwipe anybody). Proving that files were actually downloaded by another person (this is going to be tricky). Proving what losses you've actually suffered because of this. Proving that the files weren't already available elsewhere (where did these alleged file sharers get them). Proving it wasn't somebody else breaking in over you know highly insecure WiFi adapter. And then there's getting money out of a poor college student.

And what happens when even one of these cases is lost by the music monopoly? Can they risk that? I will be highly surprised to see any of these cases actually reach a verdict.

not a single mention of theft in tfa (1)

capicu (880524) | about 9 years ago | (#13226241)

the words theft and stealing were ominously absent from the article. this makes capicu happy.
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>