'ISPs don't work for the RIAA' → Re: EFF - Encouraging Fraudulent Filesharing

by "illegal share", I assume you mean copyright infringement? In some cases it can actually be legal to share (a little something called "fair use").

in any event, if the RIAA and member companies would get their heads out of their @sses and offer non-DRMed music, there would be much less reason to "illegally" download or "make available".

the actions of the RIAA are about as futile as bottled water companies complaining to the municipal water commission that "people are getting water out of their taps for free!" Although they would never do that because they have actually figured out how to compete with free.

YESI disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material.You are probably right. But I don't think giving up the fight is the right thing to do, even if the fight is not completely winnable.

Excellent post TCH. Let me expand a little up on this...

I am a published writer and photographer. In my short freelance career, I have personally caught a few websites and publications using my work as their own. A few sites were non profit, but still, the point is that my work is just that. Mine to own. If I sell that work, then it is no longer mine.

I know software makers who make shareware who find their full version products downloaded thousands of times on P2P networks. Then you have the small regional bands who will share a couple songs of their work, but find their full albums out on P2P networks. The community expects us to believe that these people aren't seeing a cut in their profits from lost sales? Please. I personally know 6 people who have at least 8GB of music they have downloaded and have no intention of buying. However, they listen to this music on a daily basis. If that doesn't spell lost sale right there, I don't know what does.

There has to be some protection of intellectual property rights out there. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying P2P should be outlawed, but there has to be a punishment for illegal file sharing. In my mind, there should be a totally independent law enforcement group going after people who are sharing digital music and movies online.

There is no such thing as anonymous file sharing, which is why it should be very easy to find those that infringe and be able to prove it. Gee, its as simple as getting a list of everyone sharing, their IP address, ISP hands over their information based on the IP, and there you have it.

There just needs to be a separate entity doing all this work and not the RIAA.

It is nice to hear from an artist on this who depends on copyright to make a living. There are always posts here at BBR that claim that no harm is ever done by stealing copyrighted works. Of course, they are only cheap people who feel that it is their god given right to take something without paying for it.

Yes, for a small publisher like yourself, you does hurt you, but the artists are paid regardless of piracy. The artists sign a contract and it's done. It's not like they are paid a weekly check where the $ amount is based on how many times their album was downloaded.
So yes, I agree with the small man trying to make a living wage, but with $$ artists that flaunt a obscene lifestyle, they are still getting paid regardless.

And thus you followed the procedures by copyright law to notify and pursue owners of such websites and publications on that matter? You had your work registered with the Copyright Office? Not sure I follow you here. There are plenty of protections for intellectual works. Before P2P you could tape a song from the radio and listen to it on a daily basis, wasn't that legal and did that spell a lost sale?Again, I'm not sure I follow, there are plenty of laws protecting intellectual property rights. P2P != illegal. Sharing digital music and movies != illegal. Law enforcement is not a dept. of the RIAA/MPAA. They can follow due process and existing laws. The problem is they want to legislate their way to profits. Besides, there are far bigger problems that deserve independent resources in the USA than maintaining the RIAA/MPAA outdated business model.It is not that simple. It has already been shown in a news item recently that even connecting to say, a torrent tracker that is being watched over by MediaSentry will get your IP flagged as an illegal filetrader, even if you're not uploading/downloading. And lets not forget about the dead filetraders and other bogus lawsuits that the RIAA has filled. Someone takes your car without your knowledge and robs a bank. Would it be fair if you have to pay for that crime? An IP address is not a reliable identifier of an illegal filetrader. And besides, the ISP will hand over the personal info of an illegal filetrader as long as the RIAA follows due process.And there are plenty that will do the work, I just don't see why we as taxpayers or the ISPs have to subsidized the cost of it. Let the RIAA/MPAA pay for it. Going by their inflated figures on loss due to piracy, their ROI will be almost immediate.

how can non-DRMed, legal downloads increase file sharing? CDs don't have DRM, so the music industry sells non-DRMed music all the time. In addition to that, some music is available for file sharing even before the CD is out. Saying they need DRM isn't to stop piracy, it's to perpetuate the music industry business model of central control.

As for giving up the fight, they could get a clue and change their business model - remember the bottled water.

Just out of curiosity.... How do you think they got from the small time to the big time?

So are we now going to determine whether or not a theft or infringement upon someone's rights is based on how big or how successful the offending party is?

I disagree. It just would make it easier to infringe on copyrighted material.

No harm done? No...but can one prove that there's a net loss? (aside from **AA's manufactured numbers) I'm sure on the flip side, there are people who've downloaded Nightfall 's music, liked it, and bought it. Hell, alcohol causes physical harm 100% of the time, yet it is still widely sold because (when used in safety and moderation) there is no ill-lasting effects.

Do we know an exact figure of sales lost vs. sales gained? Lament P2P all you like, however, you need to show proof-positive damages before calling wolf.

right thing to do is irrelevant, only thing relevant is what you can get away with and clearly people can get away with p2p

you can get all my information but unless you can prove in court that it was me who was downloading and not someone that was using my "connection" i am not responsible for braking the law. It's same as if you get a speeding ticket, the person that broke the law is responsible and not the register owner. So having information of who "downloaded" is not enough

Look bro, although I was someone who downloaded hundreds of songs per day eventually my own principles got in front of me and I erased around 90% of my library which was downloaded music.

Now I only listen to music I either recorded and was given a right to hear or I simply buy a album that's "really" worth it. Eventually as I became a sound engineer I began to realize how I was hurting artists and in person. Especially when one of the singer's of the group who I had a personal talk with gave me her point of view on P2P.

In the end all your doing is stealing and as much as I hate the RIAA, it's for other reason's beyond extortion. So just don't spout some crazy stupid ass idea with numbers out of your ass if you simply don't know what happens when you don't see it with your own eye's.

The money that comes in just don't go to the artists, what about me? I am a sound engineer I need to get paid, the mortgage for the studio needs to get paid, and all this expensive 40K in audio equipment.

A nice studio microphone is priced around 150 dollars and up, and that's just the freaking microphone.

Good for you.And I'd say the same for you too. You want to prove damages to me? OK, quantify it. How did you arrive at your calculations? Are your methods flawed? etc. For all we know, maybe your music simply isn't "really" worth the price you set on it, and that's why people aren't buying it.

Sorry, but I'm a person of logic. You give me point A (piracy), and point B (loss in sales), and want me to conclude that A infers B, with no proof of what's happening inbetween...but merely hearsay and "gut feelings". I'm sorry, but facts are what sway my opinions, not hunches.

That has nothing to do with sales, so yes, you are wrong. I have over 40GB of music that I share, mostly all downloaded for free. I have no intention of ever buying any of that music. If I was not able to download for free, I still would not pay for it - I would stick to radio.

What burns you more? People downloading music without paying for it, or the fact that the popular music artists, that you and those like you record, walk around with their fancy clothes, 20 cars, and multi-million dollar mansions living off those of us who make a modest living to pay the bills? Okay, so here's where you might (like the RIAA) tell me how 9 out of 10 artists aren't so successful and so we must pay $20 for a CD to support everyone on the label. Newsflash: I'm no interested in subsidizing the music industry. If you're gonna try to make it as an artist, it's your risk and not mine to finance.

I highly doubt every artist is like such. However, RIAA seems to have a terrible habit of picking the worst role models for anti-piracy and putting them on publications. Do I really want to hear Metalica play dress-up as "starving musicians"? Hell no.

So that makes copyright infringement right?

What about the software makers who make a living off sales of shareware and get ripped off? I know no one cares about the profits of microsoft, but what about the small software companies?

It doesn't matter how much that person or company makes. Copyright infringement should be punished the same across the board. Doesn't matter if it is a small time person just trying to make ends meet or a large corporation making billions in sales.

Since you own the connection, you are responsible for what goes on over it.

We can throw out hypothetical ifs here, but if you are using this music on a regular basis, then in my mind it would be a lost sale. Same goes for software. If you download and install a piece of full version software, and use it for the better part of a year to build your website, clean your PC, or you play the game for 3 months, how is that not a lost sale?

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

My definition of a lost sale is pretty clear. You using what you downloaded for free? You using it often? Keeping it on hand for the future? If the answer is yes, then it has value to you and its a lost sale. If you download it once, listen to it, then delete it, I would not consider that a lost sale.

I think thats a pretty fair analysis.

quote:

---

And thus you followed the procedures by copyright law to notify and pursue owners of such websites and publications on that matter? You had your work registered with the Copyright Office? Not sure I follow you here. There are plenty of protections for intellectual works.

---

I agree. There are procedures to protect your intellectual works, which I have taken advantage of. I have been repayed in the past or my work has been removed from websites at my request. The good thing is that I have never had to get lawyers involved. Course, my work isn't something that gets traded via P2P.

quote:

---

Before P2P you could tape a song from the radio and listen to it on a daily basis, wasn't that legal and did that spell a lost sale?

---

Course not. In my mind though, you are paying for quality of a product when it comes to music. You aren't going to get a great quality if you record off of the radio. Which is the benefit of CDs. I am not going to get into the whole RIAA is crap argument because they do have their heads up their asses when it comes to digital distribution of their product. I will say this though, when it comes to movies, software, and so on, you didn't comment on any of those. What about the small bands who don't want their work on P2P? Who fights for them? What about the small software companies who make a shareware product and then find the full version of their product on P2P for a free download? Do you approve of those things?

quote:

---

It is not that simple. It has already been shown in a news item recently that even connecting to say, a torrent tracker that is being watched over by MediaSentry will get your IP flagged as an illegal filetrader, even if you're not uploading/downloading. And lets not forget about the dead filetraders and other bogus lawsuits that the RIAA has filled. Someone takes your car without your knowledge and robs a bank. Would it be fair if you have to pay for that crime? An IP address is not a reliable identifier of an illegal filetrader. And besides, the ISP will hand over the personal info of an illegal filetrader as long as the RIAA follows due process.

---

Which is why we need a neutral party to look over the findings and evaluate if there is a reason to go after them. I am talking someone separate from the **AA. If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I mentioned that more than a few times.

quote:

---

And there are plenty that will do the work, I just don't see why we as taxpayers or the ISPs have to subsidized the cost of it. Let the RIAA/MPAA pay for it. Going by their inflated figures on loss due to piracy, their ROI will be almost immediate.

---

With all the people who bitch about the wrongful suits, you would think they would want to see a "internet copyright protection" task force or some kind of check and balance. Oh well, its an idea nonetheless.

I disagree. There are enough ways someone can break into and use your computer/connection that this isn't the case, and should not be the case. Again, if someone breaks the glass in your car window and hotwires the car, you're not responsible for what they do with it.

Likewise, if someone cracks your WEP key, and installs back oriface (whatever the modern version is) and some "invisible" proxy software to use on your PC, I can't see how you should be responsible for that.

Sorry, but your mind set is twisted. A lost sale is one that would have been made if not for the piracy. I got software, games included, that I downloaded, used and never bought. Fact is, if I did not download them, I would not have bought them anyway and that is a fact, not a hypothetical. Now, there are certain games I have bought and never bothered to even try to download them, like the Battlefield series and the GTA series. Those were actual sales. If I had downloaded them instead, those could be considered lost sales since I definitely would have purchased if I could not have gotten them online.

I will never, ever, ever purchase a music CD because I have been ripped off too many times with CD's that have one good song and the rest is crap. Can I get my money back on those? No. Will they ever have a reasonable return policy to guarantee my satisfaction with their product? Probably not. Until they change their ways, I will not buy their products.

You do have a good point. That is why there should be a warning or two initiated, which is already being done for the most part. For multiple offenders, there should be some legal repercussions. After all, all you have to do is pull the plug.

There really is no way to police this effectively other than a search warrant which most people who infringe on copyright would hate to see. Imagine the people at home downloading and then the police show up with a search warrant to search your computer for copyrighted material. But I digress....

In this digital age, there has to be some form of enforcement against these kinds of crimes. Just because it can't be effectively policed or enforced doesn't mean it still isn't right. Seems to be that is what the argument is around here. Since it can't be policed, it should be ignored or allowed. That just shouldn't be the case.

But you will gladly pirate what you want which makes your arguement moot. You say you would never buy them, but you will gladly use them. You can say you would never have bought them, but yet you use them on a regular basis.

So around and around we go.

Once again, we are dealing with hypothetical ifs here and there is no answer because we can't change what is going on right now or the past for that matter. Looks like we can agree to disagree and move on. I have no problem doing that.

The small software makers who do not have the marketing capital to get their wares to the public normally benefit more from this model. In regards to shareware most of that software is easy to find without the use of P2P because the developers let most legit download sites post for them. Since shareware is mostly about donations or purchasing the full version P2P doesn't seem to affect them.

I did do a bit of software digging on P2P out of curiosity, and what I found is that most shareware offered is the free version. Not the full version. Granted there are hundreds of programs out there and I can no way check all of them, but at the same time some of the programs I decided to download. Sure enough that download had all the instructions and data available telling me where to donate or buy the upgrade. Either the file sharers took the shareware version or maybe some developers are seeding the P2P landscape themselves.

Another thing to note regarding the fear of software being traded. It's essentially just that. One shining example is a game that came out not too long ago called Galactic Civilizations II. The game was completely DRM free and could be completely loaded onto your computer without needing the CD to run the game. The developers specifically said they will not restrict their game and were very open in their supporting web site. It was the top selling software title it's first week out in many stores (not game title, software overall) and additional orders from stores like Best Buy, EB Games and Gamestop far exceeded expectations.

This is a small company (Stardock Systems) and they made these sales by word of mouth (and glowing reviews). In spite of the fact this game had to have been a treasure trove for freeloaders to just download since there was no DRM the game still became a major hit.

In this crazy "download for free" world there are still plenty of people who will spend money on a good product. File sharing is not the problem. As you know my stance on the try before you buy model for P2P makes it extremely useful to both consumers and artists. The mentality of not buying anything is the problem, and that has to be dealt with on each individual basis.

The question becomes would they have been listening to that music everyday had it not been free? I know many people who download music and still buy CD's because the whole point of the CD is the nice case, the pretty pictures, lyrics, etc. However they do download alot of music, mainly singles, that they have no intention whatsoever of buying, and would simply never buy, the only reason they have it is because its free.

Now this is a double edged sword as on one hand it might make them more likely to listen to the artists future work and be interested in actually buying a full cd, but on the other side you can argue they are "stealing" the current song and that if they didn't pay they don't deserve to listen to it...even though they could have recorded it off the radio.

Lets look at software for an easy example. I have an "illegal" copy of Adobe Illustrator. I've used it maybe 5 times total. Had I not the ability to download it, I would never have actually gone out and paid $499 for it. Do you want to call that a lost sale? The only reason I downloaded it and used it was to mess around, it will sit on my harddrive taking up space until I do a spring cleaning....so do you want to try and claim that i've cost Adobe $499? How could Adobe have lost money that I had no intention of giving them in the first place?

I also download DVD's. Guess what, DVD's that I actually like I go out and purchase specifically so I can have a nice case, packaging, etc. I'll admit right now a few weeks ago I downloaded The Prestige just because a site I frequent had it available. The movie was amazing and I already have it pre-ordered from amazon. There are MANY other people just like me, had I not downloaded the movie I guarantee you I would have never seen it, nor purchased it.

So guess what, its kind of hard for you to prove that someone has been cost a sale unless you know for a fact that the person would have bought the CD had they not been able to get it for free. I'll feel free to use another example from my "life of piracy", I downloaded an album just the other day from a rapper "young jeezy". Now I don't normally listen to rap, but one of the songs happened to have a good beat from what I remembered hearing it on the radio, so I downloaded the entire cd since it happened to be available on IRC and was much faster then searching limewire, or torrents for the single.

Now do you think for one second that had I not been able to download the song, that I would of actually went out and spent $15-20 for the CD had I not been able to download it? No, not a chance, my life would have moved on and I would of heard it 1000 more times on the radio till I got sick of it just like every other song that radio murders through repitition. So do you want to call that a lost sale? The sale can't be lost if it would have never occurred in the first place.

you will find many people who download music/movies/games still go out and buy those very same things (Especially PC games due to online play and most people don't want to search for "cracked" servers)

There will always be some people who do stop buying as much because of downloading, just like there will always be people shoplifting the CD's, point is the amount the industry is losing to this is nothing, they just need to come up with excuses as to why no one is buying their cookie cutter crap music....yet they continue to pay the artists more and more and pay for music videos that costs more then some movies to make....

The RIAA has spent FAR more money in "stopping piracy" then it has ever come close to losing "due to piracy"

/rant

That's like saying someone who owns a car is responsible for whatever occurs when someone steals it. Or perhaps a gun owner having their weapon stolen and used in a crime, should they be similarly charged?

Simply being the unwitting last point-of-contact for a crime is not the same as committing the crime itself. Want to charge someone with copyright infringement? Fine...prove that they did it, and not someone else.

Ever get a parking ticket as the OWNER of the car and you weren't driving it. You still have to pay the ticket, no matter who(wife,husband, son, girl friend) parked it illegally. If you own the link, you retain some measure of responsibility.

His example still remains valid though. Had it not been for downloading, the songs would've just been a digital rip off of radio, and the content owner would still not see a dime from the music sale.