RIAA vs. hackers WAR? - Page 4

notyoueither · June 27, 2003, 04:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No, I don't assume that. Hackers in fact only go one way. Even Kevin Mitnick didn't go around breaking into other people's systems for pay. Even black hats rarely do this sort of thing as hired guns.

I am convinced you have not the feintest idea of the truth of human nature.

notyoueither · June 27, 2003, 04:09

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

The same paypal-supported fund that hires the lawyers in the first place would also pay out damages, if any.

So, the same people who refuse to pay for music will pay to maintain the right to steal it? I see a flaw in the plan.

notyoueither · June 27, 2003, 04:13

Ability, not right. Only in communist systems do all have the right to the fruits of someone else's labour without compensation to the producer.

The Mad Monk · June 27, 2003, 04:38

A little desire for revenge could go a long way...

notyoueither · June 27, 2003, 04:41

I suspect that would be a long way short of actually paying for anything.

Seeker · June 27, 2003, 05:58

Are you kidding Dissident?

They are fighting a Hydra. If they chop down one system, all the people that have gotten used to trading will migrate to the next level of security until we really do have true anonymous p2p networks.

The RIAA is driving privacy innovation.

And they may have deep pockets, but we have the forces of consumer laziness and hatred of being ripped off on our side. They CAN'T win.

Urban Ranger · June 27, 2003, 08:47

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I am convinced you have not the feintest idea of the truth of human nature.

Do you know who Kevin Mitnick is?

Jac de Molay · June 27, 2003, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
Are you kidding Dissident?

They are fighting a Hydra. If they chop down one system, all the people that have gotten used to trading will migrate to the next level of security until we really do have true anonymous p2p networks.

The RIAA is driving privacy innovation.

And they may have deep pockets, but we have the forces of consumer laziness and hatred of being ripped off on our side. They CAN'T win.

I agree. What the industry needs to do is find a price point for CDs where the trouble of copying music isn't worth it anymore. Maybe $9.99 for new cds?

I remember when dual deck VCRs came out, and people said that piracy would kill the videotape movie industry.
Did producers go after consumers and manufacturers of dual decks? No, they lowered the prices and ended up selling more in the long run, recouping any initial losses with a huge increase in sales volume.

SlowwHand · June 27, 2003, 09:20

Good point.

Day 2. Any downloads?

I'm thinking of going into Winmx, seeing what's up.

The Mad Monk · June 27, 2003, 10:04

I have never downloaded an mp3, legal or otherwise.

Maybe I should.

The Templar · June 27, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
Are you kidding Dissident?

They are fighting a Hydra. If they chop down one system, all the people that have gotten used to trading will migrate to the next level of security until we really do have true anonymous p2p networks.

Exactly. As I said earlier, there is radpidly becoming no practical way to defend property interests in music. Well, short of blowing up computers or ending technological improvement. Time for a new business model. iTunes is a decent idea, but the execution has some kinks to work out (including higher sampling rates on the songs!).

Quote:

And they may have deep pockets, but we have the forces of consumer laziness and hatred of being ripped off on our side. They CAN'T win.

Moreover, the RIAA won't have deep pockets for long the way CD sales are going. Of course, distributing good CDs might help. Do we really need another JLo album? Another Peter Yorn? No, we don't.

Soul Survivor · June 27, 2003, 10:54

they can only hand out so many lawsuits, with 10+ million users in the US alone.... and only with a few hundred lawsuits being handed out it will be very difficult to stop without shutting down the servers. sure people in the US might be scared off from sharing files, but they'll just download files from users in other countries and move them to a non-shared folder.

if they lowered the prices of cd's to a reasonable level say $10 - $14 i would personally download significantly fewer MP3's..... right now the biggest problem i see with cds is cost, i'm not willing to pay $18 - $20 a cd if i'm not %100 sure i like it

they're fighting an uphill battle, the more of these things they try to shut down the more customers they alienate

Seeker · June 27, 2003, 11:15

Here in Canada or Korea I've no fear.

Feel free to suck all the Johnny Cash and Wagner off me you want.

I think the only 'pop song' I actually haven't deleted yet is EZ E's 'I'm on the Radio' and 'Lithium'.

And in Korea...

(Jaws)
"I don't know what a Korean ISP might do with that American injunction...might it eat I suppose. Seen one eat a rockin' chair once."

optimus2861 · June 27, 2003, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
Exactly. As I said earlier, there is rapidly becoming no practical way to defend property interests in music. Well, short of blowing up computers or ending technological improvement. Time for a new business model. iTunes is a decent idea, but the execution has some kinks to work out (including higher sampling rates on the songs!).

Agreed. The RIAA business model, which regards CDs as the end product, is dying a slow death. If they don't come up with a new business model in the next 5-10 years, I think they'll be all but dead. Suing your potential customer base is a page right out of "Public Relations Disasters 101".

I'm surprised that we're not seeing a stronger move to DVD music sales, with 5.1 surround sound recordings, artist interviews, live performances, etc as an alternative. It seems like such a no-brainer with the explosion in DVD sales over the past 5 years or so. Consumers have shown they're willing to pay $19.99 for the DVD of a $75 million movie; when those same consumers see a music CD, which couldn't have cost 1/10 of the movie to make, going for that same price, they know damn well who's doing the gouging and who's offering a quality product.

gunkulator · June 27, 2003, 15:58

RIAA can't win the technology battle so they'll continue to work in the political realm.

All you music "sharers" *cough*thieves*cough* high-fiving each other for sticking it to the RIAA only work to give them more ammo in their fight to invade our privacy. The overt flaunting of music copying leads to successful lobbying for anonymous searches of our hard drives. Each major ISP will have to comply with what will eventually amount to an open-ended search warrant.

The penalties will stiffen too. Those of us who exceed the speed limit on a daily bass know that if we get caught, the worse thing that'll happen is a small fine and then we can be on our merrier way. So of course we all do it. If speeding carried a penalty of a $10,000 find plus 6 months in jail, there'd be a whole lot less of it. The RIAA will continue to lobby for greater and greater punishments.

Sure the uber-hackers will continue to get away with copying music back and forth, but Joe Sixpack will weigh the hassle vs. benefit vs. the potential penalties and realize that's it makes far more sense to shuck out $18 for a CD instead.

MosesPresley · June 27, 2003, 16:30

I'm curious.

How is the downloading of music from the internet different from going to the library? At the library I have free access to all sorts of media and I am allowed to make copies. How is the downloading of music and the sharing of game copies different from recording films off of the pay channels on television? The US courts ruled that was permissible some time ago when the corporations tried to ban VCR home recording.

I have been playing games for many years. The multi-billion dollar gaming industry was built on games without copy protections. These games were distributed amongst friends and family for years with absolutely no detriment to the gaming industry as was Win95, 98, ME. In fact the gaming and computer industry thrived in spite of the lack of copy protections.

The only thing I see going on here are corporate greed and the curtailment of consumer rights.

mrmitchell · June 27, 2003, 16:49

Quote:

You know, if the record companies would just wake up to reality and realize that to stay in business they are going to take a revenue hit, they might actually survive.

P2P has nothing to do with their revenue hit. They released something like 30% less albums IIRC.

Spiffor · June 27, 2003, 17:26

RIAA will lose because they are fighting a lost battle against the consumer. They pour huge money in this battle, with minimal impact. I disagree with Dissident on his assumption that people share less: on the contrary, from my experience, people share more and understand better that P2P only works if many people share (or the sharers may kick the leechers, which happens fairly often).
And it's only normal : the internet has made the costs for copying information near nil. The RIAA is the remnant of the copy industry, which made money thanks to the high-costs of copying info. Internet simply erases their reason to exist. EIther they'll adapt and drop the stupidity, or they'll die. All by themselves.

I don't think the hackers will do any significant assault against the RIAA. Probably some annoyances, but nothing that'll be really hampering to the Evil Organization. It will merely crumble under the weight of history.

SlowwHand · June 27, 2003, 17:39

Going once, going twice, going 3 times.
Any d/l's ?

Pekka · June 27, 2003, 18:20

Sloww, I haven't downloaded anything today. I've been a good boy. But I'm about to download............ *now*.

SlowwHand · June 27, 2003, 18:24

If your machine doen't fry, let me know how it went.
When someone says I can't do something, well, you know.

Soul Survivor · June 27, 2003, 18:25

i've significantly slowed my pace...... from about 50 a day to less than 10

but there are still millions of people out there sharing, i just hope they go after kazaa users first

Pekka · June 27, 2003, 18:26

I'm not using p2p-things though

. But if you really want, I can get something off kazaa or winmix too.

SlowwHand · June 27, 2003, 18:28

Same, Winmx and Kazaa Lite.

Pekka · June 27, 2003, 18:33

I'm not expecting any problems, since I don't share mp3s in p2p-things. Because my internet connection sucks, downstream slows down if upstream is used, even when it is not supposed to, according to the ISP. So, I like to keep my dl's speed in maximum, meaning no sharing.

So I'm not expecting any troubles under any circumtances.

And I don't believe in Dissidents prophecies either. History has shown, that these kinds of counter measures haven't worked. They only force people to make better software, better privacy, and without new laws about making all privacy software illegal.. I can't see anything happening. I trust in collective wisdom of internet freedom fighters

. It has never let me down.

optimus2861 · June 27, 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by MosesPresley
How is the downloading of music from the internet different from going to the library?

The library has a statutory exemption from some copyright restrictions due to their non-profit academic nature (for the USA, see section 108 of the 1976 Copyright Act). See this paper for an overview of copyright law and libraries.

A person at their home PC offering music for download without the express consent of the copyright holder is engaging in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works. There's no statutory exemption whatsoever. It's a pretty blatant case of direct copyright infringement, and the copyright holder is free to bring a civil suit agains the infringer to recoup damages, or if the case is severe enough, to press criminal charges.

Urban Ranger · June 27, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
The overt flaunting of music copying leads to successful lobbying for anonymous searches of our hard drives.

I am not aware that there's such a law.

Pekka · June 27, 2003, 23:42

That is clearly a violation of privacy. It won't go through here at least.

Q Classic · June 28, 2003, 00:01

i don't really download western songs these days. since it's inordinately difficult for me to obtain k-pop and j-pop, i have to settle for buying lots when i'm over there and then downloading it when i'm not.

today, however, i broke that self-imposed limitation and downloaded a version of gilbert and sullivan's "i am the very model of a modern-major general" so i could follow along to it with this sco-related parody.

Sava · June 28, 2003, 01:24

Quote:

A person at their home PC offering music for download without the express consent of the copyright holder is engaging in unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works. There's no statutory exemption whatsoever. It's a pretty blatant case of direct copyright infringement, and the copyright holder is free to bring a civil suit agains the infringer to recoup damages, or if the case is severe enough, to press criminal charges.

I'd just assume wipe my &*^$#& with that "law"