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!

IFPI Turning To Lawsuits

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the taking-a-hint-from-across-the-pond dept.

Music 85

Sherman's doppleganger writes "The IFPI (the "European RIAA") has made a lot of noise about filtering this year, but it looks as though 2008 is instead becoming the year of the lawsuit. The IFPI has now sued an Irish ISP in an attempt to keep copyrighted content off of its network. 'The lawsuit accuses Eircom of abetting illegal downloading by allowing copyrighted material to traverse its network unimpeded. The IFPI... wants the ISP to start filtering traffic to scrub all illicitly uploaded and downloaded copyrighted material on its network.' The lawsuit comes less than a week after an Israeli court forced the nation's three biggest ISPs to block access to HttpShare.com."

cancel ×

85 comments

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

"Turning" to Lawsuits? Come Now (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723168)

IFPI Turning To Lawsuits
To say the IFPI is turning to lawsuits is like saying Bob Dylan is turning to drugs. It's an organization of lawyers! What else do they do?!

I recall them dishing out 2100 lawsuits at once in 2005 [arstechnica.com] and 8000 lawsuits at once in 2006 [arstechnica.com] ! And evidence that it's been going on since 2004 [mit.edu] .

You might be able to convince me that the IFPI is getting smarter (or stupider, depending on your views) at stopping file sharing by targeting ISPs with lawsuits but to say they're only now with litigating to stop these losses is ignorant.

Re:"Turning" to Lawsuits? Come Now (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723192)

It's an organization of lawyers! What else do they do?!

I can think of a thing or 102.

Re:"Turning" to Lawsuits? Come Now (1)

moxley (895517) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726738)

Bob Dylan does drugs??!?!??

slashdot users. (-1, Troll)

das_schmitt (936797) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723196)

I would never socialize with a slashdot user. Sorry.

Blame yourselves.

I like strawberry pies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723232)

or the xylohemitarantular system's tricks with snore

So all traffic should be banned (2)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723250)

...wants the ISP to start filtering traffic to scrub all illicitly uploaded and downloaded copyrighted material on its network.

So, basically, nearly all traffic traversing the ISP must be blocked because most is covered by copyright. Also most webcontent falls in the same category. What a prospect.

Re:So all traffic should be banned (2, Funny)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723360)

root@gateway.eircom.com.eu# ifconfig ppp0 down
root@gateway.eircom.com.eu# exit

Re:So all traffic should be banned (2, Funny)

Alexx K (1167919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723362)

We tried asking the ISP to pay a 5 Euro levy per kilobyte to cover the costs of its users downloading copyrighted content. As you already know, the ISP refused, so we must resort to the proffitable$wnasty business of suing to get our way.

Cheers and hope you live in Europe,
IFPI

Re:So all traffic should be banned (3, Interesting)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723822)

Read your own quote again. They said "all illicitly uploaded and downloaded copyrighted material", not "all copyrighted material". That argument was a petty nitpick at terminology in the first place, but here, it's even more useless.

Re:So all traffic should be banned (5, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724102)

Ok then clever clogs.
How do you know what is illicit and what is allowed?

Is the content of the website you are downloaded owned by (for instance) perfect 10?
Have I given permission to YOU to download a css stylesheet I designed for use on my website?

Is the Code in the software update you are getting copyrighted to the person you are getting it from?

Did the original rights owner give you permission to distribute that mp3 file to your IM friend?

the list is endless.
Without knowledge of what is illicit and what is allowed you might as well block the whole lot.

Re:So all traffic should be banned (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726626)

Unfortunately the distinction between permitted and not permitted is meaningless, as is the distinction between copyrighted and public domain. The ISPs see bits and bytes, but these are not properties of bits and bytes. The exact same transfer that's illegal today will be legal in life+70 (barring more Mickey Mouse acts), bit by bit. That means the only possible way for ISPs to tell an illegal download from a legal download is to keep a database over all possible illegal downloads, which works for a plain unencrypted transfer. However, as anyone that's worked with SSL knows it negotiates a random session key so there's an arbitrarily large number of streams of bits and bytes that transfer the same data. Once we arrive at this stage the ISP is basicly checkmated, there's nothing it can do.

What they are trying to do is to use the non-authenticated, plaintext nature of the negotiation phase as it is today to determine whether it's illegal or not. Creating an HTTPS version of torrents/trackers that doesn't leak anything to the ISP would be fairly trivial, so would adding authentication if the ISP tried its own SSL connection. At that point, the ISP is quite frankly guessing. They know you connected to TPB, but not what you searched for, what torrent you're getting and if it happens to be a legal download (many torrent aggregators just pick up everything) and you talk SSL to all your peers. There's no possible theoretical or practical way they can tell the difference between you downloading Ubuntu 7.10 (700MB) or a illegal DVD rip (700MB) over a torrent, the traffic patterns would be exactly the same.

To take a practical example where this is already all encrypted, I can connect via NNTPS to my news server. How the hell is my ISP supposed to know what I'm doing? They haven't got the faintest possibility to know anything at all. Of course in this case there's a server at the other end they could go after instead, but in a P2P network it's simply impossible. P.S. For anyone trying to make the lame pun about "The first rule about Usenet..." it's near 30 years old, and everyone that cares to know already knows about it. The only possible way an ISP could prevent copyrighted works from going over their networks is to turn off the lights.

Re:So all traffic should be banned (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730764)

Not only that but any filtering/blocking on Eircoms network would also have an effect on near all the other ISP's. Eircom owns the backbone, and most of the other ISP's are resellers of Eircoms wholesale products or use their network one way or the other.

It doesn't help that the current minister for communications is a clueless idiot, and the current government is one of the most corrupt in a long while. This could get interesting.

httpshare.com? (4, Funny)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723258)

I never heard of httpshare.com. After reading the summary, I went to the website, to see what it was. I still don't know what it is, because it is in Hebrew. However, in plain English, they mention that they upgraded their servers, and they thank IFPI for the free advertising.

Re:httpshare.com? (3, Interesting)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723502)

I must admit that my Hebrew is not what it used to be ;), but it seems to be similar to rapidshare with the added benefit of searching the content.

Makes you wonder why rapidshare didn't implement this, oh wait - that would prove that most of the traffic is infringing copyright. Plus it would make it easier to sue those uploading. *AA must love httpshare.

On a more serious note I'm still surprised by the concept of keeping piracy down by going after those distributing it on the internet. Maybe that's the only way to go if you can't win in the long run. I'm still waiting for the hdd offering enough capacity to store all music ever produced. After that the one storing all movies is just a matter of time. Just calculate the current size of the ITMS and compare it to the growth rate of hard disks - makes it kinda silly to talk about this issue anymore...

Re:httpshare.com? (2, Informative)

stevo3232 (794498) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725300)

Makes you wonder why rapidshare didn't implement this

While it is by no means a complete index, http://rapidsearch.yi.org/ [yi.org] combined with http://warez-bb.org/ [warez-bb.org] allow you to find most of what you could possibly be looking for on rapidshare.

Good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723262)

I'm sick of ISPS turning the other way and pretending they dont know when they have copyrighted material on their servers. Serves them right. There is such a thing as acting reasonably, and if you have servers that contain copyrighted material, and the IP owner informs you, you have a duty to remove that content immediately.
If you don't, I'm fucking pleased you get sued.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723426)

That's not what this is about. It's not about ISPs hosting copyrighted works that the person hosting doesn't own. It's about the ISP's customers downloading copyrighted works that they may or might not be authorized to.

Re:Good (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726416)

You have demonstrated ignorance of the distinction between an Internet Service Provider and a web hosting service. You are advised to look these up on Wikipedia.

common carrier? (4, Interesting)

blackcoot (124938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723288)

does ireland have a legal concept similar to common carrier in the u.s.? i'm not a lawyer, much less an expert on the irish legal system, but it would seem to me that this case could only work in a country where common carrier laws are either non-existent or very weak. if ireland does have something like common carrier that would cover eircom then a win appears to essentially invalidate common carriers and make any isp that sends traffic through ireland potentially liable, even if both ends of the infringing connection are outside of irish jurisdiction.

Re:common carrier? (4, Insightful)

Atario (673917) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723866)

It seems to me a basic concept of Western law. For example:

Should a toll road's owner be fined if someone transports illegal goods on it? Or required to search all cars that pass?

Should Disneyland be fined if someone manages to smuggle in 'shrooms and consume them waiting in line for Pirates Of The Carribean? Or conduct drug searches and tests on all patrons?

Should a taxi driver be fined if a passenger sneaks trash out the window? Or required to maintain all windows and doors to be sealed at all times?

Re:common carrier? (2, Insightful)

blackcoot (124938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723934)

you would think, but given the creative lawyering and flagrant corporate abuse of legal systems across the world, you might well be wrong. if there's anything to be learned from the legal system(s) in the u.s., it is that it doesn't cost much to write laws to your advantage.

Re:common carrier? (2, Interesting)

Hegh (788050) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730836)

Well put. If ISPs should be held liable for what passes through their networks, it stands to reason that telephone companies should be liable for what passes through theirs (which I'm pretty sure is protected by common carrier laws in the US). The police don't try to stop people from discussing illegal activities over the phone, they just listen in when they get a warrant for a wiretap and catch the criminals in the act.

I suppose it's understandable that the RIAA is unhappy about how things are set up, since there are no criminal penalties (and therefore no police protection) related to copyright offenses, because it means private entities need to take charge of protecting themselves. Courts do not issue warrants to anybody but police, so they cannot wiretap the ISPs.

Suing the ISPs to make them block infringing traffic is definitely not the right answer, though, since there is no way of knowing whether any single packet contains copyrighted material, and whether that material has been licensed for transmission to the receiving party. Their best plan of action would probably be to make it legal to copy the music, but provide extras with purchased music that makes the purchase worthwhile. For example, NiN's special collector's album, which includes vinyl a photo album.

Re:common carrier? (2, Informative)

Secrity (742221) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723988)

ISPs and the ISP divisions of telcos in the US are not common carriers.

"common carrier" vs. "common carrier" (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724424)

ISPs and the ISP divisions of telcos in the US are not common carriers.
There's a difference between "common carrier" in the strict legal sense and "common carrier" in a broader practical sense. In the United States, ISPs have legal protections analogous to those of common carriers, called "OCILLA safe harbor". See 17 USC 512 [copyright.gov] . Popular use of "common carrier" to refer to the OCILLA safe harbor is little different from popular use of the term "fair use" as a blanket term for limitations on exclusive rights in a copyrighted work under 17 USC 107 through 123 [copyright.gov] and 1008 [copyright.gov] , when only section 107 uses are strict "fair uses".

Re:common carrier? (4, Informative)

judas6000 (748273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724038)

Ireland, as a member of the EU is granted "mere conduit" status by the EU.

COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2007). Council directive of 21st June 2007 on Electronic Commerce (Terrorism Act 2006). (07/1550/EEC). Section 5 Paragraphs 1 & 2 read,

"(1) A service provider is not capable of being guilty of a relevant offence in respect of anything done in the course of providing so much of an information society service as consists in--
(a) the provision of access to a communication network; or
(b) the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service,
if the transmission condition is satisfied.

(2) The transmission condition is that the service provider does not--
(a) initiate the transmission;
(b) select the recipient of the transmission; or
(c) select or modify the information contained in the transmission."

Therefore as long as the ISPs stick to their guns and do not filter content on their networks then they will be ok, as they are protected by law as far as terrorism goes. However it would seem that this could be deemed to apply to other offences too, or at least thats my understanding of it, I should add that IANAL, so I may have misread what the EEC were getting at when they wrote that law.

In the COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2000). Council directive of 9th June 2005 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (2005/1529/EEC) Part IV Art 18. Paragrahs 2 & 3 read,

(2) A person acts as a mere conduit for a communication if--
(a) he communicates it in the course of an activity carried on by him, the principal purpose of which is transmitting or receiving material provided to him by others;
(b) the content of the communication is wholly devised by another person; and
(c) the nature of the service provided by him in relation to the communication is such that he does not select, modify or otherwise exercise control over its content prior to its transmission or receipt.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) a person does not select, modify or otherwise exercise control over the content of a communication merely by removing or having the power to remove material--
(a) which is, or is alleged to be, illegal, defamatory or in breach of copyright;
(b) in response to a request to a body which is empowered by or under any enactment to make such a request; or
(c) when otherwise required to do so by law.

This again would seem set out in law the fact that just because someone can alter the content of a communication doesn't mean they have to, and that even if they do remove content they don't have to exercise control over the content. This would pretty well seem to protect ISPs from whatever lawsuit may be brought against them by the IFPI.

Re:common carrier? (2, Interesting)

Hegh (788050) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730898)

Interesting... If that exact law applied to the US, ComCast could be in bigger trouble than they are now:

(2) The transmission condition is that the service provider does not--
(a) initiate the transmission;
(b) select the recipient of the transmission; or
(c) select or modify the information contained in the transmission."

You don't get it... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726586)

This is a bunch of lawyers with a mandate - "Try to sue!"

Doesn't matter if they win or not, they're being paid to send out letters and harass people, hopefully generating some press coverage along the way.

Re:common carrier? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22727538)

Digital Rights Ireland has a post up discussing this case:
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2008/03/11/irma-v-eircom-why-isp-filtering-for-the-music-industry-is-a-bad-idea/ [digitalrights.ie]

Excerpt:

"You might have noticed that the big music firms are suing Eircom, demanding that it put in place a system for monitoring peer to peer filesharing and blocking transfers of their music. We think that this is a bad idea. Here's why.

Intermediaries, not police

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are intermediaries. They are not, in law, responsible for what internet users do, any more than An Post is responsible for what individuals send in the mail. In fact, European law specifically states that they may not be put under a general obligation to monitor the information they transmit. This action undermines this principle and threatens the privacy of internet users - in much the same way as if An Post had to open and examine the contents of every letter they carry. Here's what the ISPAI had to say about this:

The Association is totally opposed to any obligation (such as that apparently in this Belgian court decision) that ISPs should monitor all of their customers' Internet communications on the off-chance that someone may be distributing copyrighted work which they do not have permission to use. (How is an ISP, or any other third party, to know whether a communication is copyrighted, who owns the copyright or whether permission has or has not been granted?)

The privacy of all personal and business communications is at stake here. This is the electronic equivalent of the post-office steaming open every letter in the sorting office, checking the contents and never delivering the bits some unknown worker believes should be censored. If legislation forced ISPs to monitor, never mind the democratic or moral issues, in practice everyone would immediatly switch to encryption rendering any such monitoring useless, the monitoring process itself would slow the Internet to an unusable snail's pace.


Privacy

This technology will result in ISPs being obliged to monitor everything internet users do - in effect, acting as private censors for all users without any warrant or even mere suspicion that a particular user is doing something wrong. If the music industry has evidence that a particular person is sharing copyrighted files then they can and already do take action against that person. If they do not have that evidence then they should not be demanding that ISPs monitor innocent users."

Comply! (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723378)

I'd comply immediately once they provide me with working code that has no false positives and pay for it to be implemented too! Not all P2P is copywronged and not all HTTP is legitimate - telling the difference to a high degree of accuracy requires artificial intelligence we have not developed yet. So if it is impossible to implement then while they're at it they may as well ask for a Pony and a Ferrari too.

Re:Comply! (1)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723566)

Hmm. I thought they identified pirates by traffic analysis, e.g. connect to a tracker that is known to be sharing an infringing file, then keep a timestamped log recording the IP of everyone who sends you a part of that file. The logging part is automatic, but the connecting part is manual. They will only pick the files they are interested in; they are not going to police other people's copyrights. I can't see how this will produce false positives, although no doubt the pirates will use the old "my wireless access point is open" defence if they can. (I wonder if that defence still works if your Bittorrent client is listening for incoming connections...)

Personally I would much rather they did this than lobby for mandatory filtering, since I think the filtering approach will eventually affect everyone, pirate or not. Trivial filtering (blocking sites) won't work, so smarter solutions will be needed, and these will inevitably destroy online anonymity.

Re:Comply! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723718)

onnect to a tracker that is known to be sharing an infringing file, then keep a timestamped log recording the IP of everyone who sends you a part of that file.

IANAL but this could cause problems.

If the block is small enough it isn't covered by copyright (the same way Jive Bunny couldn't get sued for copyright infringement).
Sending one block does not prove the user is sharing the whole file. Just because their bittorrent software says it has the whole file doesn't make it true. I'll admit the odds say they are but it is no way a certainty.

(I wonder if that defence still works if your Bittorrent client is listening for incoming connections...)

A number of bittorrent clients support UPnP. If someone has an unsecured wifi router there is a chance they haven't even changed the default password.

Re:Comply! (1)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724046)

why would you assume that someone who has unsecured Wifi then they must have no concern for privacy or security.

I always keep my wifi open. it's just common courtesy.

when my internet goes down, I log into my neighbours internet to do the online work I have to get done. I keep mine open so if they are in the same situation, they can do the same.

really, how much harm can they do to your computer by using your wifi?

Re:Comply! (2, Interesting)

gmack (197796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724972)

really, how much harm can they do to your computer by using your wifi?

Your argument reminds me of a 3com sales guy who told me encryption isn't important for home connections since no one wants to break into your computer anyways. The problem is that it's not your computer they want; it's your internet connection.

They could start spamming and get your account disabled. There was also the time I got called in to find out why the office internet was so slow only to discover that one of the neighbouring offices that shared our internet connection had an open wifi and someone was using it to launch a DoS attack.

Then theres the guy they caught driving the wrong way down a one way street with his pants down in Ontario Canada. Turns out he was using someone's wifi connection to browse child porn. Imagine having that traced to your ip. Given the current guilty until proven innocent attitude when it comes to crimes against children your likely to lose your house and job before they even bother (if they bother) to find out you were innocent in the first place.

Re:Comply! (1)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725098)

Turns out he was using someone's wifi connection to browse child porn. Imagine having that traced to your ip. Given the current guilty until proven innocent attitude when it comes to crimes against children your likely to lose your house and job before they even bother (if they bother) to find out you were innocent in the first place.
1. you have my IP records. its an open account, no encryption...look at this, (opens .bat file that reveals internet activity) my neighbour, the creepy grade 3 teacher, is using it right now...how strange...
2. you have a list of the material that was downloaded.
3. Here is my hard drive,
4. here are all of my monthly backup disks
5. if you find any of that material, let me know.

the police are people, too. if you are kind, pleasent, honest, and up front with them, they tend to not be dicks.

as for the DoS attacks and spammers....I think I will check my wifi activity more often. but because most of my neighbours are really freaken old, i don't think i have to worry about that.

but i appreciate the heads up. I wouldn't have thought of those.
is there a way to prevent that while keeping an open connection?

Re:Comply! (2, Informative)

gmack (197796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725486)

the police are people, too. if you are kind, pleasent, honest, and up front with them, they tend to not be dicks.

I completely agree with you. I just find that being human some topics make people go completely off the wall. I agree that every child porn creator should be nailed harshly but I find that the search for them tends to be in the witch hunt category.

I think I will check my wifi activity more often. but because most of my neighbours are really freaken old, i don't think i have to worry about that.

I was actually shocked when I discovered that.. there were no houses around just an industrial park. I think it was actually a war driver since every other office in range used the same shared connection. The main lesson I learned was that remote locations don't guarantee security

As for the rest.. I suppose you could put in a transparent proxy that restricts outgoing mail and an ICMP filter. Be careful to allow ICMP messages dealing with fragmentation so that things till work correctly. (Blocking all ICMP is an unfortunately common mistake)

It means kicking your NAT functions off of the wireless gateway but then I find that speeds things up anyways

Legal filesharing should be kept legal (4, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723416)

File sharing is crucial to the success of musicians such as myself who offer free downloads of their music. We do this to promote our work, and to gain fans.

But direct HTTP downloads can bankrupt a struggling musician if their music suddenly becomes a hit. To allow mass distribution at modest expense, I offer Bit Torrent downloads [geometricvisions.com] of my music.

I can't really see how an ISP could filter out copyright infringement without also filtering out files that are non-infringing.

Bit Torrent distribution is also crucial to Free and Open Source software projects, whose installers are sometimes hundreds of megabytes or even gigabytes in size.

In the debate about file sharing, please speak up for the legal uses of it.

And yes, I know I can host my work on free sites like MySpace, but then it would be MySpace's website and not my own that would benefit from links placed by fans. For business reasons, it's much better for a musician to have their own website if they possibly can.

Re:Legal filesharing should be kept legal (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723508)

OK, I'm not a CompSci and I'm hazy on how the whole internet thing works (beyond the well-known fact that it's a series of tubes, of course.) So, what I'm wondering is whether there's anything that distinguishes illegal files from others as they're traversing the tubes? Or would the ISP just have to block all filesharing regardless of legality, rather than risk allowing copyright-infringing files through?

I guess what I'm asking is whether the technology is available to make it possible for the ISP to do what they're being asked without also placing restrictions on legal traffic?

There's a way it could be done, but impractical (2, Informative)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723584)

You'd have to compare the general sound of audio files to known audio tracks whose copyright owners don't license them for sharing.

But you can't do a bit-for-bit comparing, or a hash, because there are a lot of ways to change the precise data in a file without changing what it sounds like in a way that is noticable to the human ear.

For example, you could re-compress it to a different bit rate, or transcode it say from MP3 to Ogg Vorbis, or what have you.

I'm sure there are known algorithms that can tell if two audio tracks sound alike, despite lossy compression.

The problem is that there are a lot of tracks to compare against, and a lot of sharing files. So it would be so computationally expensive that no ISP could afford to actually implement it.

Re:There's a way it could be done, but impractical (1)

absoluteflatness (913952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730172)

it would be so computationally expensive that no ISP could afford to actually implement it.
Agreed. The discussed uses of this kind of technology were for sites like YouTube and MySpace. The key difference is, an ISP would somehow have to do the same filtering in realtime.

Of course, leaving asaide the issue of trying to match tracks without having more than snippets of the data. The reality of many P2P technologies is that pieces of the file are fetched in a more or less random order. Not particularly conducive to any prospective filtering.

More than likely, the IFPI would want wholesale blocking of, say, the Gnutella network, and consider that a job well done. As far as I'm concerned, anyone still using Gnutella at this point almost deserves what's coming to them.

Re:Legal filesharing should be kept legal (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723738)

Thank you! It's not my favourite kind of music, but I'll pass it on to my flatmate when he gets back from holiday and he'll appreciate it much more than I can.

MySpace is horrid purely for functionality, it's awkward to download and I frequently have problems.

(PS, I'm amazed that US Post won't post to North Korea. I wondered if Royal Mail (UK) would, and the answer was yes -- but post by the 7th December to make Christmas ;-).

I'm grateful for your help! (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723798)

If you or anyone else want a free CD [geometricvisions.com] of my album - autographed! - send your snail mail address to support@oggfrog.com [mailto]

I'll get a PHP order form up on that page Real Soon Now.

Re:Legal filesharing should be kept legal (4, Insightful)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723886)

"File sharing is crucial to the success of musicians such as myself who offer free downloads of their music. We do this to promote our work, and to gain fans."
And that is one of the reasons it must be stopped.
You are the real enemy.

Unclear on the concept (3, Insightful)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724580)

File sharing is crucial to the success of musicians such as myself who offer free downloads of their music. We do this to promote our work, and to gain fans.

People here are unclear on what the RIAA and their European cousins are trying to do. They are not dummies, and they know perfectly well that personal sharing ("piracy") actually helps their sales. They also know perfectly well that these lawsuits will not stop real piracy ("Psssst. Honorable Sir! Look here! 5 CDs for one dollar!"). They are willing to forgo those lost sales in pursuit of their real purpose. The purpose of the lawsuits is to create a climate of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) surrounding *legal* downloads. That is because what they *really* hate is not "piracy", but independent musicians. By stifling music sharing, they stifle independents, and keep the music distribution monopoly to themselves. They don't especially hate FOSS, but they don't feel especially guilty about innocent bystanders getting nailed either.

These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (5, Insightful)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723462)

These people are ripping apart the infrastructure of one of Human kind's greatest achivements over their petty squabble. I'm really sick of it, and it would be easier if these people just got the hell off our planet. Fuck thesse people. Fuck the DMCA, Fuck the IFPI, fuck the EUCD, fuck it. I'm sick of these monsters that want to drag us down into the dark ages with their greed. Its just sick.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (-1, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723850)

Don't forget the pirates. They're just as responsible as the rest of them for this "petty squabble" (in fact, I would argue more responsible).

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (4, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723972)

The Pirates didn't pass laws that robbed us of fair use. The Pirates didn't hide rootkits on CDs. The Pirates didn't create this massive DRM laden Windows Vista, Music Renting. The Pirates aren't the one putting bandwidth caps, retarding the Internet's progress and putting levies on blank media. There are a number of other things. But what the *AA and IFPI have done has been far worse than any Pirate.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (2, Interesting)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725292)

You're right, their behaviour has been crappy. But I think that we tend to lose sight of the fact that what we're talking about is a totally non-essential product. They're not restricting our access to water, shelter, education... Music is amazing, but there's no reason why we should be entitled to more than we can afford to pay for. A person isn't having his human rights infringed because he can't afford more than a couple of CDs and no-one will give him the music he likes for free. I think it's absolutely right to protest against fair use restrictions and the retardation of the Internet, but we have to acknowledge that it is illegal to distribute copyright-infringing material, and there's no valid argument to say that that is a fair or moral thing to do.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22725542)

there's no valid argument to say that that is a fair or moral thing to do.

Bullshit! What's immoral is trying to claim to have a right to prevent people sharing information. COPYRIGHT LAW IS THEFT. If you don't want something copied, don't fucking release it.

immoral and illegal are different things. The law is written by flawed and often corrupt humans.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730146)

Sorry, I don't agree. Sharing information is one thing. Sharing music is another. Music is, as I've said, I luxury product. No-one needs it; they just want it.

Of course you're right about the difference between immoral and illegal. And copyright law is made more problematic in that it benefits more than just the original artist/creator. Nonetheless, I believe that not paying a copyright holder for music is immoral - precisely because there is no actual need for anyone to have the product.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725748)

You are forgetting the fact that these laws are being used as a means of crushing political speech too,

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730068)

I don't think I am. My point is that the laws are crappy, but people who want to take for free something that they should be paying for are giving an excuse to the people who want to make these laws. If the only excuses they had were political, there'd be a larger outcry and a lot less support. But because they can camouflage them as legitimate anti-theft laws, they seem to many to have a valid point.

Education? (1)

Murrquan (1161441) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729950)

You think education comes from a school?

Re:Education? (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730202)

Yes, I do. Many people won't be taught numeracy and literacy skills by their parents. They won't be introduced to books or scientific ideas by their parents. They won't be told how the solar system works or where countries are on the map by their parents. Schools are essential for this basic education. Yes, there's a lot of stuff out there that your teacher would never tell you. But how would most people access that information without the teachers who taught them to read? One of the best ways to disempower and disenfranchise people is to deny them access to basic schooling.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725738)

But what the *AA and IFPI have done has been far worse than any Pirate.
A single pirate? No. Pirates as a group? That's debatable. They've done their half of the work to perpetuate this conflict, and the natural response to abuse of freedoms is to attempt to take them away. I'm not saying the **AA should be absolved of blame here, but neither should these pirates. They should've stopped when they were asked, especially since they were the ones who perpetrated illegal activity in the first place.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (2, Interesting)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723980)

Pirating isn't something I know a lot about. Do the pirates make money from what they do, or are they just distributing copyrighted material for free? And is the former considered morally (or legally) worse than the latter? I'm not writing to disagree with you, by the way - it's just that I'd like to understand the issue better before I make my mind up!

(Oh, and on a side note, is it okay to ask questions like this in /. comment threads? If I'm going to piss people off, I'll just wait until I can ask someone I know instead!)

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (2, Interesting)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724128)

the answer is both.

some pirates download and burn movies, and sell them for $3 each on street corners (see Asia)

It is my opinion that selling somebody elses work without their permission is both legally and morally wrong.

but the **AA and lawmakers lump people who just share music with their friends in with these pirates.
I see nothing wrong with sharing.
It's what they told me to do back in kindergarden.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724212)

OK, thanks. I agree about sharing music with your friends - but surely posting copyrighted material online or downloading it is very different? The former means that a relatively limited number of people share something between them, and someone in that group has paid for the content. So the copyright owners are losing maybe ten potential sales (probably a lot fewer) per file. The latter means that anybody with an internet connection pretty much can get hold of a file. The number of files you can get hold of isn't limited by what you or your group of friends owns. So the copyright owner can conceivably be losing thousands of sales on any uploaded file. Yes, I know that some downloaders wouldn't buy if downloading weren't open to them, but is that analysis broadly right?

I'm not pro these aggressive anti-filesharing tactics, and I think that copyright laws as they stand do more to line the pockets of businesspeople than they do to reward genuine talent and innovation. But whereas I would rip a compilation CD (or occasionally a whole album) for a friend, I wouldn't download copyright-infringing content. So I guess I would agree to an extent that those who upload and download this stuff should bear at least some of the blame for what's happening. Aren't they basically saying "yeah, we're doing something illegal, but we don't think it should be illegal, so why the hell do you get to try and stop us?" They know that what they're doing is going to draw aggressive responses that may harm other users, but they do it anyway because they want things for free that other people have to pay for.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (3, Informative)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725012)

The former means that a relatively limited number of people share something between them...So the copyright owners are losing maybe ten potential sales
so, laws will be written to regulate friendship? will we be faced with popularity caps to prevent trading of mix tapes to an excessive number of friends.

So how about radio? if a song is broadcast on the radio, and people can hear it for free, then record lables are losing hundreds of thousands of sales each time a song is played. you would think they would have regulated that, made the radio companies pay millions in royalties. Instead, the law adapted to fit new technology.

Today, the law has failed to adapt to new technology (p2p) and instead, its forcing new technology to adapt to fit the law. this is not a healthy situation, or a battle than can be won through laws as they are today.

Aren't they basically saying "yeah, we're doing something illegal, but we don't think it should be illegal
I want you to look up 2 things:

1. how many people are involved in filesharing. (US only)
2. how many people voted for the current administration

If more people support the activity, why is it illegal?

please note: I am not trying to ridicule your position, I strongly oppose organized piracy and distribution of illegal goods.

But I see a big distinction between commercial distribution, and non-comercial distribution.

I'm an artist myself. When someone takes a picture of my work and gives it to a friend, i'm flattered and pleased that they are distributing my material. but if they were to sell that image, then I would have a problem with that. they are directly profitting off of my labour.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

psychodelicacy (1170611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725234)

OK, I take your points. But I think some of the parallels you draw are flawed.

The radio analogy doesn't entirely work. A song can only be heard for free when the radio station chooses to play it, which I guess leads to people actually wanting to acquire songs they like for their own collection. So the copyright holder is likely to gain sales. This isn't the case with filesharing.

I think that different assumptions are made about online vs. "real-world" behaviour. I'm sure that most of us think that CDs are hugely overpriced. If we could have them for free, we would. But laws to protect against real-world theft have been around so long that most people don't question them or believe they have a moral right to subvert them. In contrast, "stealing" material on the internet has a shorter history, during which it has not established itself as a bad thing to do. We realised that we could do it easily without getting caught, that there were no real laws to stop us from doing it, and that it didn't feel like theft because we didn't gain anything particularly tangible from it or remove something tangible from another person. So we got used to doing it, without much of a sense that it was wrong. When people try to stop us doing it, therefore, we feel a sense of grievance.

Finally, as to your point on commercial/non-commercial, I agree that it's probably rather more moral to distribute something for free, but that doesn't change the impact it has.

In the end, if we want these products badly enough, we should be prepared to pay the person who owns the rights to them. It's not as though they're stopping us accessing essential drugs or basic food and water. These are luxury products, we don't need them, and there's no excuse for stealing them even if we do believe that the owners are greedy and can afford the loss.

I had no sense that you were ridiculing my ideas, by the way! I'm a novice in this area, and I appreciate the chance to discuss it.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22727180)

Wow.

You sound WAY too intelligent and well-balanced to be on /.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22727462)

However, I present to you a technology that's been around, oh, only since 1963.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette [wikipedia.org]

That made it INCREDIBLY easy to save music off the radio. ;)

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (2, Funny)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729024)

Home taping is killing music, you insensitive clod!

Don't you remember the stickers from the 70s?

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725760)

Do the pirates make money from what they do, or are they just distributing copyrighted material for free?
Not necessarily.

And is the former considered morally (or legally) worse than the latter?
Certainly not legally, but morally, the consensus (a.k.a groupthink) here on Slashdot is that the former is considerably worse. I disagree however, because both commercial and non-commercial copyright infringement have roughly the same impact on the copyright holder.

Re:These people need to crawl in a hole somwhere. (2, Informative)

sowth (748135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724218)

What does raiding ships at sea have to do with this discussion?

Anyway, as far as I have seen, the organizations representing the entertainment industry have done very little to directly attack the actual copyright infringers. Even in the lawsuits the RIAA conducted, they didn't seem to put much effort into finding actual infringers or verifying in any way the person they sued had anything to do with infringement. The whole thing seemed to be "let's find some random people and sue them. Who cares if they even have a computer!"

Instead they attack anyone who creates any new internet technology which may potentially carry music or movies and try to stomp them into the ground. Now they want some new filters?

HTTPShare (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723520)

I have never heard about it (not much of a downloader myself) and just went to check. Apparently my provider decided to implement the court order by modifying their DNS thingy. Well, /me (an OpenDNS user) not notices.

Abbetting (2, Insightful)

foxylad (950520) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723576)

So if this succeeds, can we expect people to start suing the Ministry of Transport because the proceeds of (real!) crime are traversing their road network unimpeded?

Censorship and P2P (1, Interesting)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723620)

I wonder if we're going to see a change in the role of P2P. It used to be about evading responsibility due to the mistaken idea that P2P was anonymous.

Somewhere along the way, people wised up to that nonsense, and it started to be about performance (though at the cost of efficiency, which really pisses off the ISPs).

Lately, it seems we're seeing a lot of censorship of websites, either by forcing ISPs to block, or forcing DNS registrars to remove the name. I guess the websites were a jumping-off point to "illicit" P2P, by providing metadata. But metadata can be shared via P2P as well. P2P could make a comeback (not in the popularity sense, but in the making-sense sense) as a way around censorship. Don't want me to be able to look up the address of a website that exposes money launderers? Don't want me to get metadata about a copyright-infringing torrent? Tough shit, there's no centralized entity for you to point your gun at.

Correct headline (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723630)

"IFPI sues ISP to force use of magical, non-existent software to "filter their network".

Perhaps it's time to bring back the evil bit.

Re:Correct headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22725318)

I think we need a new bit here, maybe call it the infringement bit.

Evil geniuses, when they are controlling their botnets, dark armies of the night and so on and so forth, really don't want to get mixed up with run of the mill copyright infringement. I mean, if copyright infringement is evil then it's Evil Lite, and there are plenty of greater evils out there - Cthulhu, RIAA - hell, every IE-only website should be setting the evil bit just on general principle.

If a protocol change is what is required, then so be it. Evil geniuses demand Quality Of Service.

Bring on the infringement bit :-)

I Still Don't Understand (3, Insightful)

Soloact (805735) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723682)

I really don't understand how the RIAA can do what they've been doing, what with the legal actions, blocking, etc, "for the artists". The "artists", which are the songwriters, song publishers and song performers, are represented by ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and the sort, for the payments and receipts of royalties, in addition to the Library of Congress and copyrights (including International agreements). IMHO, the RIAA, and their sort, are nothing but mobsters, trying to rough-up people via the legal system instead of street "hits".

Re:I Still Don't Understand (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723788)

Well, they're mobsters who are bought-and-paid-for by the big studios (who, themselves, are not exactly shining examples of good behavior.) They're funded to the tune of several hundred million dollars a year, in the United States alone. They sure behave in a mob-like fashion, it's true, but they're on a payroll. The studios are the ones who should take the blame, and are the only ones that can call off their dogs.

Re:I Still Don't Understand (1)

Soloact (805735) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724170)

It's really not the studios that are doing these things, as they are separated from the big music corporations. Yes, some of the big corporations own their own recording studios, but most of them are independent. The studios only make what they are paid in rentals, and also if one of their employees is hired to be an engineer or producer. The only thing that the big music corporations have going for them is that they front money to bands (calling them "recording contracts") at high interest, and stamping their logo on those artists' recorded media. The bands locked in "recording contracts" have to repay all of that fronted money, usually over years and years if the band doesn't fare well on the market. The corporations can also squash a locked-in band if the band tries to regain control over their own music (reference CCR vs Fantasy, Tom Petty, and others, some of which were successful).

Re:I Still Don't Understand (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724266)

Oh, I agree, I misspoke me. When I said "studio" I really meant "big bloodsucking content distribution company", ala Vivendi, Universal, etc.

Re:I Still Don't Understand (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#22727564)

Except for the very famous, smart and powerfull ones, the artists who sign with the big record compagnies do not own the rights to their creation and usually only get monkey points, that is nothing if they are lucky.
In the past, record compagnies controled everything because they were the only way to get your music published and therefore had the upper hand. Now, they control everything because they say so.

Luddites (1)

max born (739948) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723754)

This is the same misguided ideology that once tried to ban the steam engine and video recorder [wikipedia.org] .

I just got done reading the Times Atlas of World History and this seems like the modern equivalent of heresy -- threatening the established economic order of copyrights.

Hopefully in the annals of history this will merit just a sentence or two in the wider scope of things.

httpshare.com... (2, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723820)

...works fine from here. They're apparently thanking IFPI for the free advertising. :-)

Content filtering is ludicrous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22723846)

...abetting illegal downloading by allowing copyrighted material to traverse its network unimpeded...

Question: How is my ISP supposed to know I'm downloading an album from Rapidshare/Megaupload/Mediafire/Sendspace/Filefactory/Depositfiles/ZShare (pick any 50)? I mean, you can filter P2P traffic, yes, you can block the aforementioned sites, but is that going to stop me from downloading albums?

Honestly, they should just start killing random people. That'd be a more effective anti-piracy measure.

Thats IFPI, Not IRAa (3, Informative)

SlashWombat (1227578) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723904)

So, they didn't call it the RIAa, in Europe ... It was too close to IRA?

Seriously, the technology to filter gigabytes per second traffic looking for specific music signatures does not exist at a reasonable price point. And, as others have pointed out, simply Zipping the file would be enough to bypass any packet inspection anyway. (In fact, it would need to inspect the entire stream, because packet inspection would be insufficient!) (Let alone the variety of compression formats that currently exist.)

I would not be at all surprised that if you encode analog audio files to MP3 that each version would produce different digital streams. For digital files, the addition of several random bytes just before the stream to be encoded would produce the same result. (That is, totally different looking digital data streams.) At the very worst, the added few bytes might produce a click. (even that could be kept inaudible!)
Alternatively, multiply the data by some small factor during encoding. (EG:Data * 0.995 would be inaudible, but the resultant MP3 stream would definitely not match any SIMPLE filtering stream.

IF the RIAA were to provide the filtering hardware to each and every ISP, that might get them to install it, given that filtering does not slow down the ISPs traffic.
If the filter isn't 100% effective, and falsely terminates legitimate streams, then the RIAA [IFPI] would be liable, not the ISP. Lets see how long the RIAA would last after that!

I would say that the RIAA needs to demonstrate to the courts that 100.00000000% accurate AUTOMATED detection (especially at the data rates an ISP might have!)is possible before they can even begin to suggest the ISP is involved. I will lay money down that they cannot even demonstrate 10% reliable detection rates. (Indeed, I personally think the ISP does not have the authority or the responsibility to inspect/filter any traffic.)

Also in the News (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22723932)

Mrs Kattie Mac Craith is suing the Irish dept of transport for allowing cars on the same roads as children.

Isn't it a bit far fetched? (1)

kocsonya (141716) | more than 6 years ago | (#22724942)

> The lawsuit accuses Eircom of abetting illegal downloading by allowing copyrighted
> material to traverse its network unimpeded.

Wow. How about suing tollway operators for allowing illegal drugs/weapons/stolen goods/etc to traverse their tollways unimpeded? Or the state for that matter, that operates public roads? Or the public transport operators?

The "intellectual rights" industry is just getting more and more insane with each passing day. Next they will sue the electricity board to provide support for illicit activity by providing the electricity that runs the illegal servers and the illegal distribution network (aka the Internet).

I remeber reading an article in the IEEE magazine, written by an MPAA lawyer, in which he explains why without the DMCA there would be no art or entertainment and that the only thing standing between humanity and universal happiness is the analog hole.

I wonder how long will it go on and escalate before the whole thing will just crush and burn? Alternatively, we the people, also known as "the sheep" will just slowly succumb to the thought police and will learn to love Big Brother...

Correction.. (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22725808)

The "intellectual rights" industry is just getting more and more insane with each passing day

Did yyu mean to say "The "intellectual rights" industry is just getting less and less intellectual with each passing day"? :-)

IRMA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22725018)

http://irma.ie/index2.htm [irma.ie] - I suggest you write to them and tell them what you think of their idiotic attempt to destroy the internet in ireland (even if you're not in ireland). Filing a few piracy reports against names of irish politicians and celibrities should keep them busy too.
 

The reasons given are BS (1)

red star hardkore (1242136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22726412)

As stated in an article here [ireland.com] , Irish music sales has seen a steep decline of just over €40m in 7 years. They attribute this to filesharing, but I think that's bollocks. First, that is a drop of roughly 33%. Broadband penetration in Ireland is still one of the lowest in the EU. AFAIK, something like 40% of households now have broadband. It is now 2008, the decline has been happening since 2001, and trust me, in 2001 if you were one of the extremely privledged few who could even get broadband in Ireland you would be paying about €100 per month (roughly 80 punts) for a 512k connection, so much so that if you needed faster than dial-up, ISDN was a cheaper option. This decline in sales has been happening since before people in Ireland had even knew what an mp3 was.

I can give you some reasons why I think there has been a drop in sales in Ireland. In the last few years there has been a huge jump in interest in home-grown bands. Many of these bands play gigs around the country and sell their own music themselves. They skip the corporate labels and use word of mouth and reputation to gain popularity. Then they sell their cd's at gigs and keep the money themselves rather than give it to some suit. Also, do they take into account online sales through amazon, cdwow, play.com, etc? My father buys a lot of movies and music, and buys exclusively online. Is he the only one? I think not... Or downloads from iTunes, etc, are they accounted for? I'd be sure that filesharing has caused some of the dip, but the point I'm trying to make is that the big fall in sales is not directly attributed to it.

Also, eircom have a monopoly over DSL in Ireland. There are other providers but eircom own all the exchanges and telephone lines. Even most of the other DSL providers such as BT, Digiweb, Perlico, Magnet's ADSL (not their ADSL2+), etc, all rent bandwidth from eircom and resell it to customers. This means that the filtering, if imposed, would not just affect eircom's customers, but all ADSL customers in the country. Many people in rural areas cannot get cable from Chorus/NTL or wireless from Digiweb, etc. Most people in Ireland are stuck with eircom or one of their bandwidth resellers. If this filtering did come in to play, it would effectively destroy filesharing in Ireland, but would it actually stop the decline in sales? I think that it would end up causing a monetary loss for the labels (assuming that they have to pay for the system).

Really, a Meta-Look at This is Warranted (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 6 years ago | (#22727936)

Soon the music industry will die just as the buggy-whip industry died at the invention of the mass produced automobile.
Artists will promote themselves on a level playing field and the necessity of a corrupt middleman will be antiquated.
Music will be distributed freely and artists will live off performance revenues. You can't bottle music like beer to sell ,just like you can't charge for air.
Music is information and longs to be free and will break all bonds to be so. filesharing will still flourish in Europe as everywhere only disguised with a tunneling protocol,encryption or whatever will work.There are more ways to get files from one computer to another than they can ever possibly monitor or discourage.
The toothpaste is out of the tube and can't be put back easily enough to put forth the effort.The industry was unwilling to adapt at the crucial breaking point and is an angry dinosaur dying in a glacier as we speak.
          The only problem of the Euro mafiaa is setting precident in court for other invasions of privacy.This makes them public enemy #1 and should be dealt with as such.
If there is no revolutionary action against the industry,it naturally follows that the people are willing to give up a yet undisclosed part and percentage of their lives for the short term benefit of this cancerous animal.I believe this sentiment to be more naturally felt in the states,than discussed.
          All this is really good news.Even for those employed by the mafiaa as it will free them to find newer more positive careers to benefit mankind.As we know within the more you generate that is positive,the more you receive that is positive.
          To sum it up in the words of Meher Baba "Don't worry,be happy!"

 

Government sued next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22728864)

After all they are allowing pirated copies of movies to traverse the highways without filtering them.
Check for New 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>