Bearshare Shut Down by RIAA 269
Pichu0102 writes "According to WebProNews, Bearshare has been shut down by the RIAA." From the article: " Online file-sharing service BearShare, along with operators Free Peers Inc., is packing it up due to a $30 million settlement with the recording industry. The conditions of the settlement were agreed to by the P2P company to avoid further copyright infringement litigation."
lol (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:4, Insightful)
But in fact, what they are doing is a new style of Robber Baron practice.
We need a new Teddy Roosevelt.
Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
I first learned about BearShare and LimeWire aroud the same time. Mid-2000 if memory serves. Napster had recently "gone down" and I was still in the middle of my "wow- I missed 100's of years worth of awesome music" phase.
Ok, so here come the "RIAA is evil" rants. I can accept that (after all, this is /.). However, please consider:
One of the major anti-RIAA arguments around these parts is that they don't actually do anything to benefit anyone. I agree 100%. But that said, how can we cry over a company which made ad revenues based on pirated content? Scum versus scam: who cares who wins? We are the losers.
In six years, I could have downloaded more music than I will ever have the time to listen to. Long before BearShare went down, tons of new p2p services appeared. The RIAA can keep playing "whack-a-mole" for the next 100 years (and I'm sure they intend to) but "Joe User" will *still* be "illegally" downloading and sharing the "Black album" no matter how many times the drummer of Metallica cries about it.
Good ridance to the malware! (Score:5, Insightful)
Never Never Never give up ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the same with the RIAA. These and DEA "folks" will keep on busting some high profile targets, but the iceberg like underground trading will forever go on
It has always been like this, and will be, even if the "boston strangler" steps in
A valuable lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said before... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice work... (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesnt matter how many used it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what we have now is a classic black market situation. With the price of the goods controlled at artificially high levels through taxation or regulation there will always be an underground trade in the goods in question, whether it be in alcohol, drugs or music. There is really no way to prevent it unless you find a strong technological countermeasure.
Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
No one really cares about bear share. I'll grant you that.
On the other hand, they were the pipe, not the infringer. If a criminal walks through your yard, and the feds seize your property and house, is that really a good thing? Granted, Bear Share had a big sign in front that said "criminals welcome!"...
But the RIAA's efforts in other areas, like extending the DCMA for property and asset seizure, and federally mandated access to ISP logs on demand, could be very chilling.
The entire IP situation in the USA is getting very bad. Small software developers are getting sued by patent houses, getting sent bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars...just because some patent mill happens to have picked up a crappy patent that almost sounds like your project.
Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason that the RIAA and the MPAA are so dangerous is...because of the truly bad law for which they've been largely responsible.
I agree 100%. Let me rephrase "point 2":
The USA (a 90% wonderful place) has quite a few "dumb laws" on the books- most put there by crooked goons with corrupt motives. However, we the people have *always* responded to these laws with passive resistance: we ignore them. See also:
Let them pass their laws. And let the people ignore them. Remember: they can't afford to keep ALL 300 MILLION of us in jail no matter how much money they print.
Re:Is it centralized? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the management of the RIAA's member companies were to take a long, hard look at what the RIAA has actually accomplished (e.g., alienated the customer base, eliminated profitable new recording technologies, and given the whole business a black eye, PR-wise) they might begin to wonder about the RIAA's relevance to the modern world. Although, in truth, companies like Sony have management that is just as sleazy, and are perfectly capable of alienating customers without the RIAA's dubious assistance.
Actually it's easy to stop this illegality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
No they can't but when nearly everyone is guilty of something, then they can selectively enforce the laws on those they dislike. Cause enough trouble and the law will be enforced, just for you.
Best fight the new laws every which way you can. That said though, you do have a good point. A law is what certain people think. It isn't something you have to obey.
Re:Why I'm not afraid of the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
No, my friend, you would have to pay a large retainer up front. Very large. And chances are, you would not see anything from any of that. Technically, you could win your case, but you will ultimately lose money. Yes, the system is screwed up and unfair, and the **AA knows that. Unfortunately, they are smart, and that's why they use these tactics.
Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA (unlike, say, Standard Oil back in the day, etc) is just a trade association, acting on behalf of its member companies, who in turn act on behalf of the people who hired them to handle a portion of their business affairs: the artists who want to publish their music and get paid for it. Your "robber barons" are Bono, KT Tunstall, Celine Dion, Slipknot, 50 Cent, and every other artist that uses an RIAA-member company to deal with the money side of their publishing.
Are you really comparing a relative monopoly on, say, energy distribution, mining, or rail transport with a trade association made up of hundreds of publishing companies representing thousands of artists?
Further, all you have to do is just not consume the music by these artists you obviously hate. After all, they are the ones that expressly chose to have a company handle their publishing, and to make use of their copyrights on the work they produce. OK, so you hate that... great! That means that you must also, if you have any intellectul honesty, have no interest in being entertained by someone who so annoys you with their business decisions. After all, from the tone of so many conversations one hears, there must by thousands of stellar musicians who have no interest in making a living from their recordings, or in protecting their rights... so, surely somewhere in that range of non-profit musicians (or, musicians willing to hope you'll send some money when you download a "free" copy of their work) that will replace, for you, the stupid, annoying, robber-baron musicians you don't really like anyway.
After all, music is a natural resource, just like oil, and it's being controlled by Evil Robber Barons! What? It's up to the musician to decide if they agree with you, and want to give their work away, or sell it through a different pricing model? How likely is it that you're rationally persuading the artist to see things differently when you're ripping them off, contrary to the very business model they've chosen to use to make a living? Don't like the choice your favorite new musician made? Choose another musician to amuse you since you're too cheap to spend a single damn dollar for a song. Really, "Robber Barons." Amazing.
Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:1, Insightful)
yes, but only if your a top exec at a top coorperation, or a celeberty
Someone ought to see Xerox (Score:1, Insightful)
a) taking a CD, ripping the song to a lower-quality format like an mp3 and then making hundreds of copies of it; and,
b) taking copyrighted printed material, and then making hundreds of photocopies of it?
Think of the billions of documents illegally photocopied every year.
By the Supreme Court's own logic, unless Xerox can find a way to prevent photocopying of copyrighted documents, they must cease and desist selling photocopiers. And since we all know thats not going to happen, I guess someone really needs to sue Xerox.
Your view depends on your goals. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have completely missunderstood the purpose of copyright and give undue importance to all the wrong things. If the goal of copyright is to make money for publishers, your reasoning is correct. If the goal of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" [archives.gov], you are wrong. The original term of US copyrights was 14 years, despite the tremendous cost of publishing at the time. The goal is to spread information and culture, not to make sure a bunch of greedheads have money. As the cost of that spread declines, the time required to recoup costs diminishes and vanishes. The spirit of America is that you are free to do what you want but no one owes you a living. Exclusive franchises were hated then and should be today.
The RIAA are demanding government protection from legitimate competitors and a defacto control of culture. If you don't understand this, you don't understand how the music industry works. It's not so much your ability to get music that matters to them, it's their inability to control what you are exposed to that scares them to death. They seek to perpetuate an empire of control based on the technical limitations of 20th century broadcast and recording technology and a great deal of racketeering. Without RIAA only stores, selling junk sampled on the nations three radio networks, the world's big three music publishers start to look as good or worse than any other music publisher. Musicians and artists would then be able to market themselves freely and keep more of their earnings and the industry would collapse. Make no mistake at the level of control they seek with DRM and broadcast flags. They want the ability to limit what you are exposed to and are willing to pay for and then to squeeze you for every play while paying the artist next to nothing. The riches they earn are based on exclusion and extortion, not on the promotion of excellence and that directly contradicts the purpose of copyright.
In a world of cheap publishing there should be as many publishers as there are artists. Why not? Anyone can set up a web page. There's no longer a technical reason to reject any manuscript and not offer it to the public. The previous legitimate purpose of publishers, to chose and promote excellence, has been also co-opted by web. Copyright laws, based on paper and mechanical copy are insanely restrictive and obsolete.
Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:5, Insightful)
You hit the nail on the head - back when the social compact of copyright was created - we, the people, did not give up much on our end of the bargain. Since, as you said, it wasn't easy to make copies back then, so giving up the inherent natural right to make copies was no big deal.
Now that copying is easy for anyone and everyone, that bargain is no longer so favorable to us, the people and we want to renegotiate.
The problem is, the entrenched copyright cartel thinks they don't have to renegotiate, that they can just dictate terms. That is a severe denial of reality on their part.
Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
Because that trade association is comprised of approximately 5 large companies that together account for over 90% of the market for all media in the western, and most of the eastern, world.
That makes them an oligopoly, who is just as cut-throat and abusive as his neighbor, monopoly.
It's up to the musician to decide if they agree with you, and want to give their work away, or sell it through a different pricing model?
That's tantamount to asking if it is up to Boeing and Airbus to decide if they agree with gravity and want to make planes that work with gravity or if they should purchase a law that makes gravity illegal instead.
It is human nature to make copies of stuff we like. People have been making mix-tapes since they first invented reel-to-reel recorders and people have been making copies of books since pen and ink were first invented.
Now that the tools to make millions of digital copies for effectively no cost at all are in the hands of hundreds of millions of people, trying to outlaw human nature's desire to copy is like outlawing gravity.
These artists need to realize that the market has changed if they don't figure out how to change with it, the new gravity is going to crush them. Just like any other business that has had to deal with revolutionary changes in technology. Keep making buggy-whips and try to outlaw cars, or start building engines instead - their choice.
Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting more precision on it, the effect is to make copyright less enforceable and proportionally more expensive to society at large.
An unenforceable law is a plague and a cancer. It spreads fear and encourages contempt for the law. Attempts to enforce an unenforceable law lead to the DMCA, the War on Drugs Used By Nonwhite People, and the like.
The burden of copyright didn't show up when you needed a press more expensive than a house to publish a book. Suppose it's 1940 and suppose I don't know the real numbers so I gasify that a book costs $2 to print and $.05 in royalties. The royalties don't stop publication. Fast forward to now. What does it cost to move an ebook from New York to Los Angeles? Unmeasurable. What happens when someone demands a fifty-cent royalty? That poor ebook probably doesn't get out on the Internet.
Re:RIAA = New entourage of robber barons (Score:3, Insightful)
The high prices that the products were sold by then were justified - it was an ethical profit on top of the cost. However it is not now. The prices are the same, but the cost is too little.
Its no logic to propose 'it is free market, if you choose so you buy it if not you do not, and invisible hand adjusts the prices' - no !
Its free market when the market is free. And with the publishers, RIAA, their money greedy extravagantly living 'artists', and their purchased senators, market is NOT free, and the invisible hand is in fact the hand of RIAA.
Hence there is not a free market, free price situation here - the public are not willing to pay these exorbitant prices, but IN LIEU of market's wishes, these prices are FORCED upon the public. The result ? Piracy.
As there is monopolisation of a different sort in this case, the exorbitant prices can not be shown as justified and legal - they are just highway robbery.
The invisible hand is still dictating the prices though - for mp3s that cost almost nothing to reproduce, it dictated that its price should be zero, or close to zero. Hence people are either acquiring it 'for free', or they are buying them for only prices in vicinity of 'cents'.
Re:Your view depends on your goals. (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not and it's only part of the problem. The current system does not pay artists [jdray.com]. Exclusive franchises never pay anyone but themselves and they are entirely clueless [salon.com]. People have been making, sharing and profiting from music long before mass production and insane copyright laws. They will continue to do so. These guys [wikipedia.org] figured out how to make plenty of money and let people share their music a long time ago. You make money doing things for people. The music industry does very little of that but keeps the rewards for itself. Copyright is only one of their tools. Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] is trying to pull something useful from copyright laws. You can be sure they are on the RIAA hit list.
Re:Someone ought to see Xerox (Score:3, Insightful)
A good book is 500 pages. If it's a paperback, you can get two pages per photocopy, so that's only 250 pages to photocopy the book. 500 copies of that will cost you $750 in paper. $2000 in toner. $2500 in shipping to send it to people. That comes to about $10.50 per copy, and take at least 80 hours on a high speed copier (not including time to reload paper, change toner, service the machine... and triple that if you want them bound) and who knows how much electricity it would take. Not to mention the cost of the high speed copier, which is thousands of dollars itself. I don't want to even think how long it would take on a personal laserjet.
A CD costs $20. Making an MP3 of the song costs you nothing but a couple minutes of your time. Enabling that MP3 to be downloaded from your machine costs you $39.99 for the internet access, but you're probably already paying for that so it costs you nothing. Having it downloaded from your machine via P2P would cost you nothing.
1000 copies of the book would cost you $10,500 out of your pocket. 1000 copies of the MP3 distributed from your machine would cost you no more than 1 copy.
Yes, a judge has said that p2p is like the photocopier, in that they have legitimate uses but can be used to violate copyright. However, the difference between photocopying books and distributing MP3s is the large amount of resources required to photocopy things, and also the low quality of photocopies. MP3s get copied perfectly each and every time and the costs are negligible. That's the difference.
So for the millions who already have it? (Score:2, Insightful)