Ohio University Says No File Sharing Allowed
from the throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater dept
While some universities have fought back against RIAA complaints about their students using file sharing for making unauthorized copies of content, it appears that Ohio University is going to the opposite extreme. Slashdot points out that the university has announced that all P2P file sharing is banned as of this coming Friday. The university gives a variety of reasons for it and seems to bounce back and forth between rationales. It may be because file sharing could overwhelm network resources, though they give no indication that current file sharing systems have actually been a problem -- just that it could be a problem. Then they claim that file sharing could transmit bad stuff like viruses and spyware. Of course, so can email and the web, but the university doesn't appear to be banning the use of either of those things. Then, finally, the university brings up the real reason for the ban. Apparently, staff at the university are sick of dealing with those new prelitigation letters from the RIAA. Rather than following in the footsteps of the University of Nebraska and sending the RIAA a bill for time wasted, Ohio University has decided it's best to just ban P2P apps altogether. Of course, while they have a "partial list" of banned apps, the description is so vague, it's unclear what might get you kicked off the university network. Something like Skype is P2P and uses up bandwidth -- so based on some of the university's reasoning, it too should be banned. It's a sad statement of the times that an institution designed for educating and learning about new things would decide to completely shut off any use of powerful technologies that have plenty of perfectly legitimate uses just because some backwards industry group can't figure out how to change its outdated business models.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whatever universities those are, consider them mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fortunately (for them) they don't have to bother with messy details like actually enforcing a ban - they just need to be able to point out that they have a ban in place, so that they can't be accused of being complicit when the RIAA starts suing.
More cover-your-ass mentality...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Policies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business Policies
I don't think they're so worried about kids doing it in class, but in dorm rooms. Ya know, after or before class-- where they live.
Saying that it could be a bandwidth problem tell me that currently, it isn't.
It seems to me that someone who didn't know what they were talking about came up with this, and when it doesn't work, hey, they tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business Policies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Business Policies
More than likely the people pushing for this ban would call themselves doing just that. Please explain how to regulate bandwidth. A monthly cap? Pay as you go like cell phone based internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Business Policies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Business Policies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm, who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm, who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get your own connection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A silver lining, if you look hard enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's this for a work-around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P and "How they gunna do it"
And to prophet and Cixelsid, they do it by stateful packet filtering. Each packet is identified by more than just the intended port, they also look at the header and the data type.
And to all. Yes, I steal music, I know it's wrong. but I still do it. Don't dilute yourself into thinking you're not doing anything wrong when you get something without paying for it, because you are. These Universities are doing exactly what they should, they're trying to make sure people who use their resources aren't using them to steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: P2P and
This is why you feel so guilty when you breathe?
And I'll have you know I haven't "diluted" myself since I was in my early teens ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: P2P and
You obviously know little about network systems. The whole internet is designed around a peer to peer network model (despite your bogus definition). In fact, two computers can communicate as peer to peer even if they are the only two computer on a network.
Ok then, how much did you pay Techdirt for the privilege of posting here? Nothing? Then you're a THIEF! You're STEALING! Call up the FBI and turn yourself in right now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: P2P and
Your point seems to be that since the internet was designed to facilitate peer-to-peer connections then any connection on the internet must, ipso facto, be a peer-to-peer connection. That can be demonstrated to be false by the very fact of how web servers (the server) and web browsers (the client) work. The server serves up data, which it sends to the browser when requested to do so. The browser software should never serve information from the user's computer when requested to do so by an outside, unsolicited connection. That would be bad.
Yeah, taking something (like the privilege of posting here) that the rightful owner is giving for free isn't stealing (or copyright infringement, or whatever), and anyone who says otherwise is a Stupid-Head (TM, patent pending). The previous poster should have thought that one through a little more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, you go to a store and five-finger-discount a CD? That's stealing.
Downloading music: Illegal? Usually. Stealing? No.
MAFIAA black propaganda has infected you, #20. Fight back. Learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you go to a store and five-finger-discount a CD? That's stealing.
Downloading music: Illegal? Usually. Stealing? No.
MAFIAA black propaganda has infected you, #20. Fight back. Learn.
Explain to me oh wise one, how downloading and not paying for it is NOT stealing? You're deriving full benefit as if you stole the physical product, and your depriving the artist of due compensation. Is your contention that since it's not a physical product that it can't be "stolen"? You're wrong. You've done harm to the artist. You've taken something without paying for it. How much clearer can it be?
You're a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I didn't steal it; I made a copy of it without the permission of the copyright holder. That's called copyright infringement and isn't the same as stealing. You don't agree? Well tough shit, the SCOTUS agrees that copyright infringement and stealing aren't the same thing (see DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)).
"...and your depriving the artist of due compensation."
Maybe. But if I never intended to buy it in the first place, then I haven't deprived the artist of anything. Also, by your logic, if I hear a song on the radio then I've deprived the artist of compensation.
"Is your contention that since it's not a physical product that it can't be "stolen"? You're wrong."
I'm not wrong. See SCOTUS decision above.
"You've done harm to the artist. You've taken something without paying for it. How much clearer can it be?"
Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. I've only harmed the artist if I intended to buy the CD but made an unauthorized copy of it instead. With your logic, every time I convinced one of my friends to by an iMac instead of a PC then I've harmed MicroSoft and owe them money. Everytime I go see the latest James Bond film but not the latest Jason Bourne film I've harmed the producers of 'The Bourne Supremacy' and owe them money. How much clearer can it be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The analogy of hearing the song on the radio is just simply wrong. The Artists and the RIAA are getting compensated for the playing of the song on the radio. Not directly by you, as in a CD sale, but by the station who gets money from advertisers who in turn get money from the consumer.
While the logic that every illegally downloaded song is harming the artist because it's a lost sale is faulty, it doesn't mean that a LOT of them aren't lost sales. I have been guilty of that in the past. I couldn't afford the CD so i downloaded it. If i had had the money, i would have bought it. Or even sometimes when i did have the money but just didn't feel like spending it when it was easier to download it for free. It's still wrong and still illegal. I don't do it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said copyright infringement wasn't illegal or wrong. I pointed out (and the SCOTUS agrees with me) that copyright infringement and theft are two different things.
Please READ the SCOTUS decision I cited above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouKnowNothing's is a child...
You have the product don't you? And hiding behind "no I have a copy of the product is B.S."
Hearing it on the radio isn't stealing (you child) because the radio us paying the author as are you when you hear their advertisments.
As to the difference between copyright infringment and outright theft -- in this case there is little practical difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouKnowNothing's is a child...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouKnowNothing's is a child...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last one: for YouKnowNothing
Your analogy is off. The operative word is BUY. You convice your friend to buy an iMac NOT SHARE A COPY OF AN iMAC that your friend didn't have to pay for. Go the James Bond film, you're BUYING a ticket. The only way you hurt them is to commit copyright infringment by viewing a copy of film without paying for it (there, I didn't say "steal").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HTTPTUNNEL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HTTPTUNNEL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
won't stop anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
with that student will have to stop using there P2P appz.
Looks to me there move was for political reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love the term
Forget the whiny arguments about how taking copies of music you didn't pay actually "help" the record companies by introducing new customers -- that's a business model decision.
How a creator of content chooses to license their work is not a decision the public gets to make for them. Many authors / artists post their works for free -- sometimes deriving ad revenue from the viewing of the content. Others choose to only publish in physical form. Still others choose a DRM option as a convenience to consumers (and to reduce production costs).
In all cases the author and publisher decide what the price, if any, is for access to that content.
Until artists / authors who choose to make a living from their craft can be certain they're being rewarded for their efforts this battle will continue.
I find the "sharing" crowd disingenuous -- "I want it free, and over time that's a better deal for the author" isn't their call to make.
I suggest you all work for free today. Your employer would just be "sharing" your labor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love the term
Ha ha ha ha! Thanks for the laugh, but you almost made me spill my coffee!
I wish your employer would stop sharing the fruits of your labor with us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love the term
It's not "stealing" it's just copyright infringment. Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suggestion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Oh Wise One.
If you were holding a lit candle and I came over and used your candle to light my candle, I have not stolen your fire. If you claimed that you had the sole rights to who can use your flame, then I may have infringed upon your rights as the one who controls the flame. In any event, there's twice as much light, now, and you haven't actually lost anything but a little control.
Summed up: You have a choice, to share the light, or be a controlling flamer.
Your call, pal. ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call me Oh Wise One.
I like your analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infamous Joe
"YouKnowNothing's" argument "I didn't intend to buy it in the first place, so I've cost the author nothing" is also crap. I guess it's okay if he copies it and never listens to it. Other than that it's childish shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infamous Joe
What if I already own the CD or LP (let's say Black Sabbath's "Master of Reality") and I download the mp3 of "Into the Void"? I already bought the music once. Must I pay for it again? And again? And again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infamous Joe
I guess I'm making the distinction at the line where the author of the content ceases to receive compensation for their work.
If the author gets paid, it should be legal. If the author doesn't get paid, it should be illegal. No matter the distribution method.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok my question.. filesharing banned right... well in order to 'share' a printer you have to have file sharing! could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT Stealing...
At my university, P2P ports are blocked so u can't use any P2P technologies. Tho I'm sure someone in IT needs P2P so I'm thinking there's a port open somewhere on the network, u just gotta find it.
From 12am-1am P2P ports are actually left open so all the people I know in the dorms start downloading at midnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, I'll bite ...
;^)
So to all those defending the MAFIAA here, and claiming any way of listening to the song without SOMEBODY paying the artist is wrong and illegal .... why then can I tape songs off the radio onto a cassette deck legally?
The next time I listen to the tape in my car, nobody gets paid. In fact, I can make 10 tapes of the same song off the radio and give those tapes to 10 friends, who never had to listen to the radio ads in the first place, and, according to the AHRA, its all perfectly legal.
Why then is one (taping songs off radio and giving away) legal and right, and the other (downloading songs and sharing with others) illegal and wrong?
I understand how one can be legal and not the other (knowing a little about how our government works), but I'd be interested to hear your bits of cognitive dissonance on how one is tantamount to "stealing" and the other is not ... or would you all prefer that every listening of a song be paid for, and the AHRA be repealed?
By your logic, and based on copyright law, do you consider singing a song for 9 of your friends at your house to be "OK", while singing the same song for 10 of your friends at one of their houses to be effectively the same as "stealing"?
(In case you're wondiering, under our legal system, the first is considered legal, the second is not ... )
I might also point out that, by your "logic", buying a book from a used book store or taking it as a gift from a friend who has already read it is also "practically the same thing as stealing" (though obviously this is not copyright infringement, since no copies were made).
Is this another practice you all feel should be made illegal?
If not, why should this way of consuming art without payment going to the artist be OK and the other ways we're discussing be illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, I'll bite ...
There are a few reasons I think they're okay with you recording off the radio:
1. qualilty sucks -- it's not of high enough quality to make them feel threatened by loss of sales.
2. inconvenient -- making tapes is no where near as scalable as posting on a P2P server where thousands of copies can be made at virtually no cost (and you don't have to buy cassette tapes).
So, they've determined that the risk to their business from piracy from radio is small enough not to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, I'll bite ...
The reasons publisher's don't care as much about the used book market (and they DO care) is that it too doesn't scale as well. There's less risk there.
The publishers would go insane if you scanned their books and posted the PDFs online -- the risk to sales of their content are higher. Even though in this case reading online is less than a great experience.
As for the singing a song for 9 versus 10 people -- I was unaware you couldn't sing a song on your own. Or did you mean play the song? Agree that content owners have written unenforeable laws and ones that seem to make no sense...
This argument started on the notion that downloading an album of songs in lieu of purchasing the CD wasn't somehow damaging the author of that content.
I'm not defending the full scope of the recording industry's laws -- just reacting to the belief by many that "if it's downloadable it must be free" or that they have a right to anything they can download for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok, I'll bite ...
You stated consuming art without paying the artist to be both morally wrong and legally should be considered to be essentially "the same as stealing".
I asked you why this is so in some cases and not others, or if you thought ALL cases should be banned.
You replied with why publishers choose not to "go after" these activities, for which your answer was interesting, if incorrect.
Like most people, you seem to think these activities are tolerated because "analog is lower quality" or something to that effect, which is incorrect. Book and music publishers don't "go after" these activities because THEY CAN'T -- those ways of "stealing" from artists are enshrined BY LAW as legal activities. I *GUARANTEE* you book publishers would support IN A MINUTE a law that banned used book stores, and even resale of books -- if they COULD make books that'd disintegrate after one reading, the WOULD (and is similar, in effect, to what many publishers are trying to accomplish with e-books.)
My question remains: why do YOU believe some ways of "stealing" from the artist are OK, and others should be verboten?
My POINT in all this is to try to help you to realize that what you are wishing could be reality (that artists maintain ultimate control of every use of their art) is both unconstitutional, contrary to history and case law, and basically unenforceable, unless you want to live under a Big Brother, IP-gestapo-like regime that monitors every use of a creative work.
By your logic, ALL ways of consuming media, except for WATCHING THE ARTIST perform his song, should be illegal, because they were ALL once considered "stealing" from the artist. Traditionally, our stance on new media technologies (radio, VCRs, records, tapes, etc. etc.) is that they allow greater liberty, freedom, and more-fluid dissemination of information, which is vital thing for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
Like most other rights; yes, even PHYSICAL property rights; copyrights were considered to take a back seat to individual liberty and technological progress. We've have ALWAYS passed laws that said, "this new technology is important, great, and will greatly reduce the cost and effort required for people to see and hear new things, and thats MORE important in a free country than making sure the last generation of rich guys stay every bit as rich in the next generation". Movie industry: don't like people "stealing" shows off TV? Tough turkey, we want people to be able to use new technology more than we want to protect your self-perceived ULTIMATE rights to control your content.
And EVERY TIME we've done this, because they were FORCED TO DO SO, the content industries have figured out that, even though people were getting content cheaper and easier than THEY would have ever allowed, the expansion of the market made possible by the new technology created so many NEW ways for them to make money, they ended up richer than ever.
But this time, with the Internet, the opposite seems to be true -- lobbyists have finally succeeded in purchasing enough of the Government where we're now saying -- this new technology is hurting the poor IP busineses so much, lets ban, restrict, control, and regulate people's use of this new technology to protect them. Let's make it illegal to even TALK ABOUT ways to circumvent copy-protection technologies. (Free speech, anyone?)
Is there any doubt the music companies, if they chose to, could bring back the old Napster, charge 5 bucks a month for it, and pocket 200-300 milllion in PURE PROFIT every month? Don't kid yourself, all this flailing and consternation about downloading is about PUBLISHER'S CONTROL of content, not about "artists getting paid for their work".
If protectionist policies for one extraordinarily rich group of citizens is more important to you than individual liberty and progress, then I understand your stance. I assume that this is true, or you've simply been deluded into thinking IP rights (or ANY rights, for that matter) are absolute. Either way, when I read your arguments, I weep for the future.
P.S. -- on the 9 vs. 10 people, I meant "singing". Under our system, one is considered a "public performance", and is therefore illegal, the other is not. Despite what you may've heard, what "cover bands" that play in bars do is quite illegal. This IS, in fact, a case where the music industry CHOOSES not to assert protectionist rights that it has. Why this is the case is one thing the music business does that I DON'T understand -- though ASCAP has tried to extort money from groups like the boy scouts and the similar group for little girls (brownies?) for singing copyrighted songs around their campfires ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ok, I'll bite ...
IP owners have resisted most forms of new technology until a way to compensate them was developed. Live performances? Get a venue and charge to come in. Recording devices? Charge for the recordings. The flood gates will open on the Internet too -- as soon as people's IP is able to be protected and profits can be driven.
My "interesting if incorrect" answer comes from 16 years in publishing as Associate Publisher for a major publisher. Sure we don't chase people making photocopies for themselves. We sure as hell do chase people making photocopies for commercial use. Go to your local college campus and ask an instructor if they pay for the photocopied handouts they distribute. They do.
You use analogies from a technology period (VCRs) that lets individual make a single copy and keep it for their own use. Far cry from a digital copy posted to a server for 1,000's to take.
Your arguments about the reality of current business models is largely on the money -- consumers are demanding a different way to access content. But no sane consumer is arguing for everything to be FREE. Your tired saws about "if I really like it I'll buy it" are B.S. for 98% of the kids copying music.
You don't like my business model? Don't buy. If I'm charing too much for something, that doesn't give you the right to take it. Calling it copyright infringement instead of theft doesn't change that.
"If protectionist policies for one extraordinarily rich group of citizens is more important to you than individual liberty and progress, then I understand your stance. I assume that this is true, or you've simply been deluded into thinking IP rights (or ANY rights, for that matter) are absolute. Either way, when I read your arguments, I weep for the future."
"extraordinarily rich"? Come on, most every author I've ever worked with wasn't rich. Most busted their asses for the money they earned.
And your paranoid rantings about "standing in the way of technology" and "individual liberty"? Shit, what's next "It's patriotic to copy music!".
No one's standing in the way -- the technology is being developed, and no one develops it faster than someone with a profit motive. See VCR / High Def CD / Web video and the porn industry's influence.
All this said, I see your side of this and bet we agree on 95% of the issue. I'm invested in seeing IP protected (I'm in the software industry now), but agree some of the RIAA stuff is over the top. Guys like you scare them to death.
Come up with a list of requirements for your ideal business model -- that'd be a great place to start the dialog. What do consumers want? vs. What can be done for profit? seems the balance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, I'll bite ...
No, as I've just pointed out, its not ALWAYS illegal. Certain ways of copying and distribution have ALWAYS been allowed, ESPECIALLY in the case of new technologies that make that distribution cheaper and easier.
Unless you were the lead lawyer making the decisions who to sue, "16 years in publishing" makes not one whit of difference. Publishers also "choose" not to go after used bookstores, much as they and authors continually howl about how unfair they are and how buying used books is "stealing" from them. Why do they not go after them? As I've already pointed out, its because THEY CAN'T. This method of "unpaid distribution" is LEGAL. My original point stands: So-called "IP" rights are like other rights -- they are NOT absolute, but fluid and changable with the changing times and technology, and ultimately are only supposed to even EXIST only to "Promote the Progress" not to give authors and publishers CONTROL of what they've created.
Not if you go back and look at the arguments made by the movie industry when the VCR was introduced, they're not. Both were/are going to allow people to steal, for free, their property. Both were/are going to put them completely out of business. Same for all the other technologies I've mentioned.
I was talking about your erstwhile compatriots -- PUBLISHERS. One of the most amazing things to me is in the current debate is that ARTISTS are not LEADING the charge to disintermediate a system that routinely FUCKS THEM to the benefit of rich guys who can afford to buy their copyrights for (pardon the pun) "a song".
Paranoid? In what way? Is it your contention that publishers DON'T want to "stand in the way" of technological progress that might reduce the price they can charge for their goods? Upon WHAT could you possibly be basing this assumption?
Ridiculous as you find it, I DO think its patriotic to copy music -- without the Napster theives, there would be no iTunes -- technological progress vis-a-vis new media distribution techniques would effectively come to a halt, I believe, if civil disobedience didn't FORCE publishers to rethink their ridiculous stances. If "Progress" is important enough to enshrine in the Constitution, then its important enough to civilly disobey unjust laws for, IMO. It may surprise you to learn that one of the fundamental tenets over which The Forefathers chose to revolt was the British Throne's insistence on "lording the rights of dead authors over the rights of the living" -- a fairly accurate description of today's copyright system, you'll note.
Agreed. I too, am in the software business (developer), and am not in favor of abolishment of the system of patents and copyrights -- though significant reforms are needed, IMO, in the Internet age, particularly w/r/t length of the time the monopolies are granted, and also w/r/t what can be protected (MS got granted a PATENT on the != operator!). And, of course, as a software developer, I wish for a system under which creators can be paid for their creative works.
The key to business models is the same as it is with every technological revolution. The technology inevitably makes creation and distribution cheaper and more fluid. Likewise the new business of selling the technology should make individual unit prices cheaper and the restrictions on what I can do with my media should become lessened, not increased. The key to EVERY ONE of these "technological media revolutions" is that they have EXPANDED THE MARKET while LOWERING THE UNIT PRICE. This is what made them compelling and allowed both artists and publishers to get rich off every new technology that has been introduced. This essential, universal fact is what Publishers are not getting (or are refusing to act like they get). This is not new, however, they've acted similarly with EVERY new technology. The only difference is, this time, our bought-and-paid-for Congress is letting the Publishers write the new technology laws this time around.
There are a thousand business models. I mentioned one in my last post ($5 a month "Old" Napster). EFF has a compelling suggestion regarding a system similar to radio called "voluntary collective licensing". I think a system in which you can choose to stream (but not save) any song you want on any device you want for a similar price ($5 a month) would be compelling to me (ie, Why would I take the time to download, store, and organize my music collection if I could listen to whatever I want, whenever I want). Labels could have an ad-supported online system where everything is free, but only offer a few tracks off each album, and then include in the system a way to buy the full audio/data CD with all the tracks, lyrics, "making of the album" videos, and any other bonus materials, vis-a-vis the DVD model that has been so successful for the movie business. I almost NEVER pirate DVDs, because they're reasonably priced, and they offer a good value for the money. Technology makes all these things viable, profitable business models, IMO.
A C64 game-trading friend of mine told me prophetic words in 1986, when the first signs of protectionist actions were happening in that market (a la the "Don't Copy That Floppy" campaign, and others). He told me: "The first and only and effective piracy prevention measure is simple: LOW PRICE". The same holds true to today -- in order to "win" this generation's revolution, publishers have to offer me (and others) a better deal than the pirates are offering. As I explained above, I think they are more than capable of going to market with many different business models that will do exactly that. The problem is THEY DON'T WANT TO. They desire CONTROL more than MONEY. The reason I don't expect this to change, is that IT NEVER HAS. With every generation, the pirates and the government have always DRAGGED Publishers, kicking and screaming the whole way, to the new technology money tree.
As I said, the difference this time is the Government's been bought by the Publishers and the pirates are having to do it all on their own -- this may change as today's kids (ie, "pirates") grow up and become legislators. Then again, it may not, as this wasn't required in previous generations, and the legislators of tomorrow might be purchased just as easily as today's. There's really no way to know, as we've never allowed the kind of wholesale purchasing of favorable Governmental policy that we are allowing today.
To sum up, the problem is not "business models". It is the lack of will on Publisher's part to take a risk and step away from the dwindling money tree to which they're clutching as if it held their last breath within it, and invest fully in the nurturing of the growing-like-gangbusters new money tree that is right in front of them, staring them in the face with the inevitabilty of the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok, I'll bite ...
I understand the label's profit fear though. If I can listed to a personalized music stream, then my need to buy albums decreases (a point you made).
The real dig for the companies though is that internet streaming makes a huge selection of music available to the consumer -- far more than they can profitably manufacture and physically distribute via their normal channels.
For example, I've found half a dozen bands on Pandora that I like -- and ZERO of those bands were available at local CD distributors (I had to buy them all from Amazon). The more personalized the music streams, the fewer mega-hits they'll have. Time was EVERYONE bought an Elivs record. Now we're picking and choosing single songs from a huge variety of artists. Good for me, good for those artists -- really bad for the P&L of the distributor.
b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad is rad.
I hear of a band, we'll call them Brad's Band.
I've never heard of Brad's Band, so I look for them using my favorite p2p program-- I download Brad's Band's first CD, as to see if they are worth the $20 I'm probably going to be forced to fork over for their music.
(Pay attention, here's the tricky part)
*if* I like Brad's Band, I either buy their CD, or, go see them when they come around and pick it up at the show.
If I don't like them, I may not delete the CD (depending on hard disk space) but rest assured now that I know Brad's Band isn't my cup of tea, I never buy or download their 'music' ever again.
Did you see that? You propose that I buy a CD I haven't heard, and if I find out I don't like them, I'm out $20 and you don't get my money ever again.
I propose that you don't get *any* of my money until I find out if I like your music.
So, I'm saying I should only pay for what I like, and you insist we should pay for the chance to see if we like it.
Who was being a child again, Brad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infamous Joe
Still a child -- lecturing someone you don't know on the "real world"....
Here are some rebuttals to your world:
A) You could figure out if you like my band without taking the entire album. See me in concert, hear me on the radio, listen to samples on iTunes, Amazon or any other service. You don't have to buy the entire album to see if you like my music.
B) If you've never heard of my music, why are you downloading anything?
B) You, being the honest person you are, stated that if you liked the album you just ripped off a P2P site you'd go buy it. What % of users do that? What % just keep the files and listen?
C) How I distribute my music and what I charge for it ISN'T YOUR CALL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last call.
I can decide if I like your band from a few songs, but I can't decide if I like an album without listening to the entire album. I'm not buying your band, I'm buying a CD.
Word of mouth is how I hear of most bands. Either the person I heard of the band can send me the songs or I can download them myself-- either way is wrong in your eyes.
I have no idea what percentage of downloaders does what with music. I concern myself with only what I do. If you want to know what they do with music, ask them.
How you distribute your music and what you charge is my call, sadly enough. You see, I, being a consumer, get to decide where my money goes. If enough consumers don't like how you do it, then either (a) You change to how we like it or (b) You run out of money and are forced to stop. The free market is a wonderful thing, yes?
Stealing and copyright infringement are *legally* two different things. You can say they are not until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change that fact. They *are* both illegal, yes. If I said Murder and Stealing were the same thing, that would not make it so, either. ("But, I'm stealing a life, your honor!")
What if all my CD's were lost in a fire? Since all I did was buy the rights to listen to the music as the MAFIAA claims, do I then get free license to replace those CDs? My rights didn't burn up in the fire, just little plastic discs. Can I do it in the form of downloading, or should I head to my local record store with a list of CDs and demand they be replaced? I compensated the artist a few years back, afterall.
I'm sure there's more I should point out. I'll await your response so eagerly it hurts, and don't forget that email address. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Last call.
A. Think that you should have access to all those songs somehow if technically possible. I think current laws allow you to make legit backup copies of all your music -- just don't allow you to give those copies to people who didn't pay for the CDs...
AGREE -- I Agree that stealing and copyright infringement are different things, but think in this case the distinction is only relevant to lawyers.
AGREE on the buying a CD, not a song, but the remedies I listed for sampling the music apply to the album as well.
Someone mentioned books above. Do you think you should be able to get your money back on a book if, after you've read it you've decided you didn't like it, or you didn't like a few chapters? Flip side, I agree that record labels often ship an album of crap with one decent song on them...
My distribution policies are most certainly not your call. You're free not to buy. I'm free to go out of business.
You can email me at indyliberal at gee mail dot com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One way in which illegal copies of CDs is OK
If a song (or movie clip etc) is shared in iTunes, then it makes no difference wheter I listen to it off of their computer in iTunes, or I use MyTunes Redux to get a copy, and listen to it off my own HDD instead, except that after the first time I listen to it, I am not using up netowrk bandwidth.
The same argument could be applied to public library CDs, although less strongly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One way in which illegal copies of CDs is OK
Musicians, authors, software developers and others who sell intellectual propery don't care if you share a purchased copy of their work. But it's not sharing if the property is copied. At that point, by definition you're not "sharing" anything.
Same with a library -- you're borrowing a purchased copy of the material. You're not legally supposed to copy the material. Same thing with a book or software.
Another good example here is the software industry. If you find a way to hack the security on a piece of software (the DRM if you will) and copy the software for your use, then you're not "borrowing" the software. You've committed copyright infringment and you've basically stolen from the author of that product -- you're using his/her product without compensating them.
Your example also falls apart on P2P networks where "borrowing" someone's music can be done by thousands of people. That goes way beyond the notion of borrowig someone's original CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, just when I meet a reasonable person "on the other side" (I think you know who I mean), who brings me back from my utopian-pirate-wonderland-dreamworld to reality and at least makes me think *for a second* about their side of the argument, they do something like that ruling to make me absolutely, sight-inhibitingly furious again.
I mean, intentionally setting rates with the express purpose, which they've stated, btw, of eliminating any possible competition I can understand -- it is, in fact pretty typical monopolistic behavior.
But now the news that they plan to not only charge the exorbitant royalty rates for the music which they control the copyright for, but they've somehow colluded with the Government to make it so they can "legally" charge royalties from webcasters for indie bands that *WANT* their music distributed freely on web radio. ARRRGHH!
Even Microsoft hasn't tried to extract new-install Vista license prices from people for downloading Linux. (Yet ... ;^)
I had *almost* convinced myself I would start purchasing some "mainstream" music again when EMI's tracks are offered DRM-free on iTMS, despite the over-charging involved (why do I have to pay higher-than-CD prices just to get CD quality? Its like they're TRYING to make it unsuccessful, so they can whine to Congress for more protection. I mean, at that rate, why don't I just buy the CD and rip it into my iTMS library?), and they pull this repugnant stunt.
(I do regularly buy local and indie CDs, but haven't purchased mainstream RIAA downloadable tracks or CDs since the industry propped that pinhead Lars Ulrich up in front of Congress.)
This has not QUITE convinced me that there is NO recourse, and I absolutely MUST abstain from purchasing music until I die or the current industry titans are deposed. There MAY still be something they could do to reconcile with me, but I don't know what it would be at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theyhave an account!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]