Bad news for p2p

[flaninacupboard]

i wanted to jump in and make a point.
if there is more than one person in your household/more than one person can access the machine, how do you prove who did the copying and the sharing?
much like recently in the uk people have realised that when caught by a speed camera you justy say "i don't know who was driving my car, but it wasn't me" they can't prove it, so you don't get a ban, you don't get points, just the owner of the vehicle gets a fine. brilliant. same rule applies "don't know who ripped/mp3'ed/installed kazaa/opened it for sharing, but it wasn't me" they can't prove it. all they can realistically do is fine you for allowing illegal activity in your household and delete your files. they don't even have a reason to confiscate your equipment as they -can't- prove that -you- did the copying.

[DEmberton]

As far as the speed cameras go, I think they just prosecute the person that's the registered keeper of the vehicle unless that person indicates that somebody else was driving and names them.

Given that people caught downloading are like to be identified via their ISP, the same could apply, i.e prosecute the person that owns the account with the ISP.

Dave

[energy80s]

Time to stick a levy onto blank CDRs and DVDRs and legalise piracy once and for all!!! I would have no problem paying double the existing price and making it legal to copy to your hearts content!

[LanceSteel]

The article states:
"This odd delay is not because peer-to-peer piracy is legal. It's not."

Do most people believe that sharing of copyrighted material on p2p networks is legal? Piracy is piracy, whether a person is downloading copyrighted material from an ftp server, web server, p2p network or getting a burned cd from a friend. I, as well as probably everyone else, know that its illegal. What makes more people do it is the anonymity that p2p networks give the clients. Most people just want something for nothing (who wouldn't?).

Another thing all I hear about is the music industry saying that they are losing money due to p2p networks. Now, I've known people who have downloaded mp3's in the past. Most of these songs that they downloaded were songs that would be nice to have (they didn't really NEED to have them.) They wouldn't have gone out and buy the CD but since the song was available for download... How does the music industry calculate lost sales? Do they look at last years sales and project the future sales or do they estimate the number of mp3's downloaded and convert to cd sales?

[SquirrelDip]

Just over a year ago, WIRED magazine posted an article dealing with MP3's and P2P (Napster at that time). I'm trying to find the article to make a specific quote but haven't had any luck (anyone?)... The point of that article that still sticks in my mind is that the largest group of people who purchase music CD's are also the group that downloads MP3's.

Personally, I have found that downloaded MP3's have prompted me to purchase CD's - someone will recommend an Artist/Group and after listening to a sampling of their music I will choose to buy or not to buy the CD. If I do not buy the CD then I most likely didn't enjoy the music. All the MP3's I download will eventually be deleted.

With the exception of very few, most of my friends follow the above logic. Young adults and kids would be an exception to the above but I believe this group will still spend what available funds they have and download the rest (this is how my daughter works)...

I do not believe that the RIAA is losing due to MP3's. If their sales are reduced then I believe it is for alternate reasons:

- Crappy music. Am I getting old or is music just not as good as it once was?
- Movie industry. I find money I may have once spent on CD's now going to the purchase of DVD's (not to mention the associated hardware).
- Game consoles. Personally I'm not the owner of a PS2/XBox/GameCube but these units are selling like candy and are not cheap (nor is their respective software).
- Other's places to better spend your money?

So, are MP3's and P2P really the blame - or are they just an easy excuse?

[lukesjr]

people always complain about the "stealing of software" using p2p. but in reality, most of the people would never buy the software or music anyways. I certainly dont have the money to buy a new album every day, nor would I. So are they really being hurt. maybe a little, but not as much as you would be lead to believe.

[scotuk1]

who gives a shit,burn baby burn!

[SuprVgeta]

If O.J. doesn't do jail-time for killing two people then I don't see P2P users going to jail for downloading MP3's... Shouldn't the FBI be focused more on finding terrorists than college kids sharing MP3's with each other?

[Tiribulus]

I've downloaded hundreds of MP3's, but have bought maybe 5 cd's in the last 10 years. Why, because 10 years ago I had mostly all the music I was willing to pay for. There was no Napster, or WWW really for that matter. I have no desire to hear, nevermind own the overwhelmingly vast majority of the shitty "music" produced since then. My downloads have been 99.9% single songs I would never had paid for a whole cd for. In short if I couldn't get it free, I just wouldn'y have it, no big deal. Music doesn't mean as much to me as it once did. So in the last 10 years the music industry has made maybe 100 bucks off me. Would've been the same with or without p2p, napster or the internet. Lock me up and throw away the key!!!
Tiribulus

[sammie]

Actually, I would argue if you are comparing downloading a single song to buying an CD you’re falling into the same current paradigm trap that the RIAA is. The real question is not whether you’ll pay $16 or $18 for a CD, but whether or not you’d spend $.50 or $1.00 for a song. (Of course the RIAA wants you to pay a $2.00 so they increase their profit margins yet again and it costs you more to download a song than it does to buy the CD.) There are always those that won’t pay anything. Never did never will. The vast majority understand that eventually, in some way somebody has to pay or the system will collapse. The question is what will people pay and in what way.

Speaking for myself, I’d happily pay $.50 a song, probably wouldn’t pay $1.00 a song and definitely wouldn’t pay $2.00 a song. Now, I love music, I listen to the radio all the time. I even prefer the modern stuff (alt rock, not Yani). But I’ve almost stopped buying CDs. Why? They are too expensive for what I get. Do I download? Nope, too much of a hassle. I just listen to the radio and buy that 1 special album every other month or three. So is the RIAA loosing money on me through P2P? No but they think they are. The truth is that if I could pay $.50 a song my music consumption would go way up. There are tons of songs I like well enough to pay $.50, but half a dozen or less albums I like well enough (that include 2 Disney albums a year for the kids) to buy.

[Jester700]

Time to stick a levy onto blank CDRs and DVDRs and legalise piracy once and for all!!! I would have no problem paying double the existing price and making it legal to copy to your hearts content!

There already IS such levies on blank cassettes and "audio only" CDR blanks. Funny thing is, artists see none of that.

The industry needs to embrace a new paradigm - pay to DL.

[gobama]

They cannot stop everyone, it's a losing battle for the software companies. P2P should be left alone, and when it comes down to it, it will not be going away.

[Tiribulus]

@Sammie
Fair enough. I would've paid halfa buck for most of the songs I downloaded, a buck for some others and even probably 2 bucks for some I was thrilled to find. I will never buy a whole cd for one song unless it is an utterly awe inspiring piece of music. I have not listened to one minute of fm radio for ten years at least, probably more like 15 and not too much even before that. My kind of music doesn't do well on the radio. Before I had evrything I wanted I probably would've paid a reasonable monthly or yearly fee to be able to download what I want. But now, I might download a song every 3 or 4 months.
Tiribulus

[johneboy]

Speaking for myself, I’d happily pay $.50 a song

as would i..
and if the average person downloads 500 songs a year.. thats, $250 in the RIAA's pocket... $250 more from me a year..

[wwaag]

Just another perspective on P2P.

I'm an old guy. I've had virtually no interest in "today's" music for the past 20 years or so (to me, it sucks using my daughter's language). My pop music era, late 50's to early 80's, was mostly pre-CD and consisted exclusively of vinyl. Unfortunately, I didn't always take care of my collection (I used to be young!!) and much of it was scratched and sounds like crap today. Moreover, much of "my" music is no longer available, except by buying more vinyl through Ebay (if you can find it), buying a "collection" that may have 1 or 2 tracks out of 20 that your'e interested in for $15 or using P2P. I'm sure that I'm not alone since there are many who have recorded their vinyl tracks, cleaned them up, and made them available to others through P2P. So what's the problem with acquiring a "better" copy of "tracks" that you've already paid for??

I must admit that I have very mixed feelings on the issue. Downloading a complete CD of a new release seems wrong--however you put it, you're getting an $18 CD for next to nothing, except for the time and effort you put into it. On the other hand, selling a CD for $18 that has only one or two decent tracks is equally wrong. In this regard, vinyl was no different. We've all been scammed.

The long-term solution is NOT through legal threats (the no-brainer approach)--somehow the entertainment industry needs to "figure out" how to "distribute" their products in this "online" age in a manner that will "attract" customers and make them "willing to pay". Recall how the movie industry fought tooth and nail against VCR technology. Today, the video release often makes more $ than the theater release. The recording industry is no different. They need to think about the future rather than trying to hold onto the past way of doing business. Unfortunately, I suspect that the real problem is that they have too many "old guys", like me, in their senior management that grew up in the days of vinyl.

Just my 2 cents!!

[Tiribulus]

Even if they could go for some kind of compromise, say 15 songs for 10 dollars? 35 for 20 and so on. How bout if you download an entire album you get a certificate in the mail giving you a steep, steep discount on the cd in stores having already paid for it. You have secure credentials that track your purchases through a database outfit that tells how many songs have left to your credit and what you've downloaded so far at what spendings. They should do it through distributer sites so people don't have to log into 20 different companies sites to get their music. Make it a condition for licensing their product that the sites have a certain amount of available bandwidth giving people yet another reason to do it legit. There is a bottomless goldmine there for the taking that these dumbasses refuse to see.
Tiribulus

[magwell]

WinMX still enjoys an air of sophistication, it's not completly idiot proof n u need some understanding of P2P programs.

That's my guess why it is unmentioned.

I think the reason WinMX isn't mentioned is because it's not a threat. Getting a file out of there is like pulling a wisdom tooth with a pair of tweezers.

[hilikus]

I know this has been said but I want to add my two cents.

When I got my first job at 16, making $4.50/hr bagging groceries, pretty much the only thing I spent my money on was cd's. I have always been a music-phile. I enjoy all ranges of music from Tchaikovsky to System of a Down to Johnny Cash. The thing that frustrated me the most was I would hear a song on the radio or see a video on MTV and think, "What great ******* song!" I would go buy the cd. What I got was 2 or 3 good songs and 13 other piles of crap. So I am spending an average of $5.33 per song ($16/cd). What a rip-off. It is rare that a CD released these days has a ratio of good songs being greater than bad songs. How I rationalize it is that I download the album. If I like it, I buy it. For example. The Interpol CD released last year. Great CD. I downloaded it. Listened to it. Then went to Bestbuy and bought it. System of a Down's latest, Steal This Album. I had actually downloaded a good number of the tracks but since I am huge SOAD fan I went and bought the cd. I think it's no secret that the music industry is in the habit of ripping the consumer off. If P2P opens their ******* eyes and allows better, cheaper access to music then I will uninstall Kazaa tomorrow morning. Why don't all retail stores have true listening stations where you can grab a cd off the rack, go up to the counter and request a listen? When blockbuster music was around they used to do that and it was awesome. CD's haven't gone down in price since they're inception. Look at how far DVD's have come. You're average new release is $16, down from $30-$50 since its inception. Look how popular DVD is. Its great quality matched with great price.

Simply put, the price per quality track isn't worth it. Better access and better prices will bring an insurgence to the music industry. But they just don't get it.

[jgcarp22]

Recall how the movie industry fought tooth and nail against VCR technology.

This statement is key.

The movie industry proclaimed that the end of the world had arrived. Not only did they profit from video cassette sales, the interest in film, as a whole, took off to new heights.

Both the film and music industries have got to realize that the customer dictates which direction the consumption travels. Dial-up is being replaced by broadband. CD-burners are now standard. DVD-CD read-read/write combos are close to becoming standard. People have the ability to create and backup their own cds/dvds how they wish. Is it going to stop there because of fear of the RIAA?

Instead of joining in on this new concept and advances, folks down at the RIAA would rather cry and moan that the new techs will lead to financial ruin. They will have to move out of their 20 million dollar homes into smaller and less accomidating 19 million dollar homes. Instead of making music downloadable for a fee, they threaten with fines and jail time.

Course, I could be wrong...Burning one's own material onto cd or dvd could be a thing of the past soon. The internet and the ability to download almost anything could be just a fading fad. The convenience of aquiring what you want, when you want, in the order you want from the comforts of your own residence may have just been a dumb idea to start with.

The RIAA is not only trying to stop illegal passing of their represented products, they wish to slow the progression of change as it pertains to their industry. The change is coming because, we the consumers, say so no matter who likes or dislikes this change.

[Thorn]

I am/was under the impression that Kazaa is based outside the US and therefore is not required to abide by US copyright laws.

And then they tried to sue the RIAA for price fixing in California. Kindof invalidates their original claim, but it was already on shaky ground due to having a few million or so customers (and therefore contracts) in California.

[DEmberton]

The industry needs to embrace a new paradigm - pay to DL.

Or rather pay to view/listen.

I think part of the problem here is that the record companies are selling CDs as a product for people to keep so they listen to as often as they like, and that's part of the reason why downloading it for free is such an attractive alternative. What we really need in this internet enabled world is a decent pay-per-view system where you pay a reasonable monthly fee, and you get to listen to any music you want streamed to you over the net. If a system like this was cheap enough and became popular enough, then CDs and CD-piracy would become a thing of the past. If you had every album ever made instantly available to you, why bother with CDs? And why bother storing MP3s on your hard disk? I'd sign up.

The same could be extended to TV & Film, although obviously streaming high quality video isn't realistic for most people at the moment.

Dave

[2573]

other thing to say, any film after a time, it show by TV by free does it mean the you can't go to see the film in the ttheater, i think no. For example, I know the Lord of the rings is going to show in the tv in two or three years, but i went to the cinema and i have the DVD, why not to wait the tv shows a record in a video tape, the quality is worth, but i will have the film.

Sorry for may english.

[Gazorgan]

Being older, I pretty much own all the music I listen to. Counting CD's and Vinyl and Tapes, maybe 400 albums worth. I don't particulary care for the current bands...but I still buy 5-10 CD's a year(I didnt' say where I buy them, but generally I don't buy new $20 CD's, used are just as good).

I listen to MP3 CDR's. Most of my collection sits in a nice cool basement, away from sticky kiddie fingers :P

The RIAA hates me, I don't buy new CD's from them. I listen to older stuff, and get a lot of $3.99 used CD's that they don't get a residual dime off of. I also listen to digital versions, not the actual media. I may bend a few 'percieved laws', but definately not breaking any.

What's the bend? I listen to digital versions of albums I own. 1/2 are analog media, do you think I ran a line-in cable into my soundcard? Think about it....

[sammie]

saw it on an internet "news" site so take it with a huge grain of salt, but it is a logical (to my pea brain) suggestion. One of the reasons the RIAA is so much more active than the MPAA is that they are scared to death of this whole direcd download thing. Everyone has their own studio these days. With direct download musicians can start selling direct to the public or through smaller mom and pop outfits and pocketing a lot more of the take. No need for studios, no need for marketing, make a higher percent of the product and charge you fans less. Hmmmm,

It makes sense that the studios want downloadable music to be DOA, pay or free.

[heretic422]

@sammie:

Exactly! If Metallica had their songs on a website and charged to access it, (DL) then they'd probably make a killing, moreso than selling through B&M's.

I'd rather pay a musician directly through a subscription to their website and get just what I want, than by paying $17+ for a CD with 2 good songs.

They just don't get it....

[sammie]

Realized that you have to clarify "studio" the marketing entity and "studio" the place where you record music in my last post. The point being movies still need the huge bucks of a marketing "studio" to produce and market. Plus, for the foreseeable future, there is no way to replace a quality theatre experience at home. Music production and listening however is now a commodity item. The music marketing studio may be well on it's way to being extinct if they don't change and react.

[ChrisX]

I may be incorrect in this, and by all means correct me if I'm wrong. I am/was under the impression that Kazaa is based outside the US and therefore is not required to abide by US copyright laws. I understand that ISP's can track our movements, but if the actions are taking place on a network outside the US can they legally do anything other than threaten? Like I said, I'm probably wrong about this, but the great thing about this site is my ability to be wrong and be corrected!!! :P

The Kazaa is Australian and basically outside of US laws. The Kazza web site isn't illegal, it's the Internet user as a legal question. There is a US court case over this.

The Verizon RIAA subpoena win case is an example of the Internet user test and the ISP is appealing on privacy.

**** the RIAA.

[ryanreko]

I think that the best thing that the RIAA can do right now is to take down kazaa then put up thier own fileshareing program (music only) that is far superior to the others... That way the RIAA can control something and atleast can charge for download or do whatever they wish, if they want control they have to get thier hand in the dish

But then again they would be saying to everyone that fileshareing is ok, and then i could only imagine that things could sprawl from there