Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

International Music Industry Amps Up Anti-P2P War 312

newtley writes to mention a BBC article discussing a new initiative against file-sharers by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. This international version of the MPAA is breathing down the necks of 8,000 users of file-sharing software. From the article: "The new cases cover file sharers in 17 different countries who have been allegedly using sites including BitTorrent, eDonkey, SoulSeek and WinMX. For the first time legal action is being taken in Brazil, Mexico and Poland. The IFPI said the actions affect a wide-variety of people: a laboratory assistant has been charged in Finland, while a parson has been served with action in Germany."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

International Music Industry Amps Up Anti-P2P War

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:28AM (#16471113) Journal
    In other news today, several socialist countries have launched The Pro-P2P International Socialist Society (PISS).

    This international version of 'everybody but the MPAA' is opening new cases against people & their sites that are allegedly attempting to sell digital copies of music that they themselves did not write or perform. The chair and spokesman of PISS, Mr. Blackbeard, said, "Aye, PISS is pissed. Digital music should be provided on the cheap--a utility the likes of water or that magic electricity ... Yarrr. Perhaps ye government could subsidize ye artists and let the people get jigs & tunes for free?"

    These lawsuits will affect a wide-variety of people: a programmer who coded a few lines of the Windows DRM algorithm, while Steve Jobs is facing seven life sentences in the gulags and is considered to be armed [theepochtimes.com] and advertising.
  • by imaginaryelf ( 862886 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:31AM (#16471177)
    Whoa! Am I the only one that read: the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry and did a double take?
    • by Panaqqa ( 927615 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:35AM (#16471263) Homepage
      The real pornography here lies in how the *AA is screwing the artists and the consumers at the same time.
    • by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy@gma ... m minus caffeine> on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:50AM (#16471579) Journal
      Makes more sense than Phonographic, frankly. Just goes to show how out of date those bastards are. If they had their way we'd still be listening to music on wax spools.

      Seriously. This is the first format we've ever had that actually had the possibility of being constant quality for the indefinite future, with lossless transference between devices. I mean records got scratched, or degraded in quality over time, magnetic tape stretches, and is super prone to mechanical defects, cd's oxidize and have the alumnium fall off, but digital audio files, not being tied to a player, are a real threat.

      Buy the White Album on CD and rip it to the format of your choice, and you'll never have to buy it again (assuming you back up your data). There is no way people will go back to the old "Tied to a chunk of physical stuff" method of information distribution. I just wish they would hurry up and realize this, instead of trying so hard to wish it true.
      • If they had their way we'd still be listening to music on wax spools....Buy the White Album on CD and rip it to the format of your choice, and you'll never have to buy it again (assuming you back up your data)

        So they'd want everyone to still be on wax spools, but they want everyone to buy things in new formats. That makes no sense.

        You do realise the RIAA etc have nothing against digital distribution, just so long as the record labels and artists that they represent get paid for what people download, don't y
        • by AcidLacedPenguiN ( 835552 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:37PM (#16472547)
          you forgot to mention that they ARE opposed to digital distribution UNLESS it is crippled with DRM to the point that I more than likely WILL have to buy it AGAIN.
          • That's a different argument entirely. The OP was presenting it as "the RIAA hates digital distribution", not "the RIAA hates un-DRMed digital distribution". Not to mention, eMusic has many RIAA-represented bands' music in non-DRMed MP3 format.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              eMusic is a bad example; the RIAA used to throw out "up and coming" acts on wide release samplers on tape, and later cd. This is just more of the same. If any of those acts should actually become popular, they'll remove the non-DRM distribution.

              The point is not the format. The point is the control of distribution and the perishable nature of the media. They've come to depend on contant obsolesence as a part of their revenue stream, and now that's pretty much shot. They depended on CD sales continuing to inc
        • Well, they'd like everyone to be on wax spools, but they'd like you to buy a new copy every few years when the old one wears out. Actually, what they'd really like is if each recording was a one-shot, somehow destroyed in the playback process. That would be just teriffic.

          It's the electronics industry, not the music industry, that has driven new formats. The music industries go along with it because they make a lot of money in the short term, but they're rarely the drivers of new formats. In fact they tend to discourage their adoption more than anything else.

          The music industry has been okay with the last few format transitions and hasn't fought the electronics companies too hard, because they've occured more rapidly than the old medium would have worn out. Thus, they made more money off of getting people to "buy up" to CDs than if they had waited around for vinyl records to all wear out and need replacement. Only now, they're starting to realize that they may have eaten the goose that could have laid a lot of golden eggs -- by forcing an 'upgrade' to CDs from vinyl, they made a lot of money in the short term, but they also gave people a format that doesn't wear out and is easily transferable to computers, where it can be replicated losslessly and endlessly, forever.

          I'm betting they wished they had stuck with wax.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jb.hl.com ( 782137 )
            Actually, what they'd really like is if each recording was a one-shot, somehow destroyed in the playback process. That would be just teriffic.

            Most industries would love that. They would cream their pants if such a thing were possible. It's not limited to the RIAA.
        • So, why do I have to put up with copy protected CDs that I can't rip to listen to in my office? I don't mean pirating anything, just fair use.
          I subscribe to EMusic.com, that sells non-DRM MP3s. Why is the catalog so limited? There are many things that I could buy, but they are not offered in EMusic, and I'm not spending € 18,00 for some stupid copy-protected CD, so their strategy is shoting their own foot. The so called "labels and the artists they represent" are actually preventing me from being the
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Ilex ( 261136 )
          You are so wrong. The RIAA do oppose digital distribution. They sued Diamond Multimedia who produced the RIO. The worlds first mass market mp3 player. Had they won there wouldn't be any IPOD's or Music phones today. They are also currently suing a Satalite radio service for their PVR recorder.

          The RIAA are against any and all forms of music distribution which they don't understand. Read 'Control'!
      • by keyne9 ( 567528 )

        This is the first format we've ever had that actually had the possibility of being constant quality for the indefinite future, with lossless transference between devices. I mean records got scratched, or degraded in quality over time, magnetic tape stretches, and is super prone to mechanical defects, cd's oxidize and have the alumnium fall off, but digital audio files, not being tied to a player, are a real threat.

        Uh, duh. How are the 'industries supposed to charge for replacements if their goods can nev

        • by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
          The artists eventually die or stop publishing good music, so they can replace the artists instead and offer, I dunno, new music? What a concept!
    • Yes. Now put your other hand back up on the keyboard, please.
    • by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:02PM (#16471859) Journal
      Whoa! Am I the only one that read: the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry and did a double take?

      I read it that way, too. Furthermore, I realized if the Porn Industry did fight back against P2P Networks, the internet may very well just stop.
    • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @01:21PM (#16473497)
      Whoa! Am I the only one that read: the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry and did a double take?

      No, someone makes the same joke every time they're mentioned. Eg http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19124 0&cid=15721315 [slashdot.org]

      And amazingly enough, they often also get +5 funny. The mods must be goldfish.

  • Personal boycott (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:32AM (#16471203)
    And this is why I don't buy music anymore (No I don't pirate it either).
    • Are you sure it isn't because another rehashed version of some boy band you never liked is all they're selling? The only stuff I download is new albums by bands I already liked..... And I figure they have my money already from the old albums, or even ticket sales.....
    • I stopped buying music for two reasons:
      1. Why buy music when you only want one song on an album. Itunes has solved this (too bad I really don't care about most music any more)

      2. The music I wanted was not legal to get in my country, so the only option was the import at pretty hefty expense or get what ever had been brought over no matter the quality? New American music just sucks. Especially all the pop crap.

      But also I don't pirate because like I said most music is pure crap so it would be like stealing
  • Phono-nono! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:33AM (#16471211) Homepage Journal
    International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
    Fucksocks! How will I download my pirated vinyl records and bootleg wax cylinders now?
  • MPAA != RIAA (Score:3, Informative)

    by ColinPL ( 1001084 ) <colin@colin.net.pl> on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:34AM (#16471247) Homepage
    This international version of the MPAA
    of the RIAA
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jackjeff ( 955699 )
      They're the same bandits anyway!!! ;)
    • They're fully interchangeable anyway. If you happen to start working for the other one, simply strike "illegal music distribution" and put in "illegal film distribution" instead. The rest, same bullspit.
  • Wrong organizations (Score:5, Informative)

    by klingens ( 147173 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:35AM (#16471255)
    The IFPI is the international counterpart of the RIAA not MPAA. The MPAA is movies, the RIAA is music, the IFPI is music.
    • The IFPI is the international counterpart of the RIAA not MPAA. The MPAA is movies, the RIAA is music, the IFPI is music.

      True, but does it matter? MPAA and RIAA, are both Music And Film Industry Associations [mafiaa.org]. Besides, Sony (of rootkit notoriety) is in both, and so were Warner and Universal until recently.

  • Canadian levies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:35AM (#16471281)
    Can't wait to see the first Canadian sued, then him/her countersuing this group and/or the SOCAN for their levies since copying is legal for personnal usage in Canada.
    • Re:Canadian levies (Score:4, Informative)

      by lRem ( 914073 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:27PM (#16472341) Homepage
      Also, good luck with suing in Poland. Sharing your music, and breaking the DRM, is perfectly legal here as long as you don't make money (or other material gains) on it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Copying for personal use is exempt from copyright infringement within Canada, this is true, but this exemption does not apply if one is sharing it with others, which is a key point of P2P services. The levies on blank media here do not exist for the purpose of granting any particular license to copy copyrighted works (for personal use or otherwise), they only exist to compensate the recording industries for such copying. One may ask what possible reason could exists for why they should be compensated fo
    • copying is legal for personnal usage in Canada

      In theory, it's legal here in the US, too (although it's a bit murkier). However, whether it's legal or not has been made irrelevant - bypassing DRM is illegal, and the goal is to make sure that you need to bypass DRM in order to make a personal copy. So you can't legally do it without breaking the law.

  • "There is no excuse" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:37AM (#16471315)
    "In each of the 17 countries involved in today's actions there are legal music services available to consumers. There is no excuse."

    Pardon me, but in some countries it just might be legal to download for your own use. Like it used to be in Finland, before Tanja ex-Karpela now-Saarela, Jukka Liedes and the Gramex mafia sold out to the media biz.

    And all those trained monkeys in the Parliament just keep on pushing the button as they are told by the party.

    We might as well replace the "elected representatives" with remote-controlled robots. I bet they would be cheaper, too.

    Yes, nowadays you can buy and download legally, IF the record label or rights holder in question has authorized your country to be the one who can download that specific track you want.

    • by giafly ( 926567 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @01:16PM (#16473397)
      "In each of the 17 countries involved in today's actions there are legal music services available to consumers. There is no excuse."
      He's obviously a very ignorant man who doesn't read Slashdot. Readers have submitted literally thousands of excuses.
    • by Pofy ( 471469 )
      >Pardon me, but in some countries it just might be legal to download for your own use.

      Pardon me, but the article says they targeted uploaders, not downloaders. That is, people that is sharing the music for others. Wether it is legal or not to download is completely irellevant.
  • Whales (Score:5, Funny)

    by Himring ( 646324 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:42AM (#16471409) Homepage Journal
    In other news, whale songs are being investigated in the ocean. The ocean, itself -- being a great conductor of sound waves, could be the largest p2p network on earth, and if lawyers can piece together three consecutive notes of any copyrighted materials, whales could be served with papers ... or harpoons....
  • by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:45AM (#16471467)
    Let's pass that along to our kids, too. Instead of paying record labels, patronize podsafe music or amateur bands (most of whom sound better than record label pap).

    Or make your own music. That's the best of all.

    Since the RIAA began their suicidal jihad, I taught myself to play the guitar. I'm no virtuoso or even very good by any objective measure, but there's about 100 times the satisfaction and enjoyment in playing the 10 tunes I know than in just listening to any song I've ever heard.

    So, in a way, thank you RIAA for showing me that doing my own thing is far more amazing than giving you money for the garbage you laughingly, mockingly call 'art.'

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I hope you paid for the rights to play those songs. Illegal/Stolen/Liberated Tabs support terrorism you know.
    • It's easy to say only listen to indie bands, but the musicians aren't the enemies, the labels are. It's easy to tell who's a sellout by their statements on downloading. Anti-P2P public service announcement? Sellout. Give away MP3's on the website like Offspring or write an anti-label song like The Ataris, Radio #2, [azlyrics.com] or Korn, Y'all Want a Single? [azlyrics.com] Not a sellout.

      You can support bands by buying concert tickets or t-shirts, if you don't mind support other evil monopolies (Clear Channel and Ticketmaster).
    • by beaverfever ( 584714 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:15PM (#16472085) Homepage
      You bring home a point about the entertainment industry that most people seem to forget. This is all about entertainment. The RIAA et al are up in arms because for them the whole piracy thing is about money, their bread and butter. It's show-biz.

      However, the arguments which come out of anti-DRM people et al really come across as being pathetic at times. There is a pervading sense that fundamental human rights are being trampled on, when we are talking about entertainment product. Nobody needs the latest hit singles. Nobody needs box sets, DVD extras, or music libraries of 10,000 songs. We want them.

      The entertainment industry, as in any other area of business, relies on supply and demand, and (as I have commented on before in /. threads), the huge amount of piracy which occurs only proves to the entertainment industry that demand is there. If you have never visited an Asian country, you have no idea how pervasive piracy of entertainment and software is throughout the world. It is huge.

      Anyone who argues against DRM or says the entertainment industry is somehow ripping off "the people", yet fights this through anti-DRM software, or some sort of piracy, or other means of getting the industry product they want on their own terms, they lose some respect from me.

      I say, put up or shut up. If you don't like what the RIAA does, if you think labels only offer music that sucks, if DVDs are overpriced or you don't like the "new release-newer release with extras" cycle, don't respond by taking their product on your own terms. That just says that you do indeed value that product and are willing to pay for it, just not in upfront cash - you are confirming the demand for the product.

      If you really mean what you say, respond by not accepting their product on any terms. Remove the demand entirely, and the market will react.

      Buy a guitar, a piano, an accordian or whatever, and learn how to play it. Go see a play in a local theatre instead of a major corporate Broadway tour. Don't initiate your kids into the corporate entertainment addiction by buying them cross-branded toys. Stop feeding the monkey on your back and turn off your fricking television. Entertain yourself and those around you instead of relying on someone else (corporations) to provide your escapism for you. You will probably find yourself living a more rewarding life.
      • I absolutely 100% agree with you. Thank you for putting my views in the clear, concise way that I can't :)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Anyone who argues against DRM or says the entertainment industry is somehow ripping off "the people", yet fights this through anti-DRM software, or some sort of piracy, or other means of getting the industry product they want on their own terms, they lose some respect from me.

        I'd actually go one better than that and state that piracy activities create an justification for the money-grabbing thieving corporations to push DRM and copyright restrictions through much easier.

        Apart from that, way to go man, a

      • I say, put up or shut up. If you don't like what the RIAA does, if you think labels only offer music that sucks, if DVDs are overpriced or you don't like the "new release-newer release with extras" cycle, don't respond by taking their product on your own terms.

        Let me remind you of what the spirit of copyright is according to the US Constitution

        From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright [wikipedia.org]

        An author's exclusive right to his creation is mandated in the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also know

      • I say, put up or shut up. If you don't like what the RIAA does, if you think labels only offer music that sucks, if DVDs are overpriced or you don't like the "new release-newer release with extras" cycle, don't respond by taking their product on your own terms. That just says that you do indeed value that product and are willing to pay for it, just not in upfront cash - you are confirming the demand for the product.

        What if I do value the product? I like listening to music. I play guitar as well, and I li

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Catamaran ( 106796 )
        No. It's not about whether the music (or movie) is a classic or a piece of crap. It's not about the cost. It's about control and it goes way beyond entertainment. When a handful of megacorporations control %99 of the mass media it's time to fear for our culture, our democracy, and our civilization.
      • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @02:55PM (#16475083) Homepage
        I say, put up or shut up. If you don't like what the RIAA does, if you think labels only offer music that sucks, if DVDs are overpriced or you don't like the "new release-newer release with extras" cycle, don't respond by taking their product on your own terms. That just says that you do indeed value that product and are willing to pay for it, just not in upfront cash - you are confirming the demand for the product.

        I don't know about you, but in my case it's that I only want to pay in upfront cash. I don't want to hit any region codes (I've got DVDs from three regions now and not going back), I don't want any unskippable ads, I don't want to buy a new monitor because my perfectly capable one doesn't support HDCP, I want to put them on my HTPC, I don't want to buy a new if it gets scratched (it's a 10 cent disk with a 10 dollar movie - it's like finding out you can't replace wear parts on your car). I want to be able to put in a CD and burn an MP3 CD for use in my car, or copy to my MP3 player.

        I want to buy a copy that I can then watch the way I want, no matter what format or medium or playback device I choose to use including making fair use copies to achieve that. My copy is mine and I can view it, lend it, sell it or whatever else I choose to do with it as long as all fair use copies go with it or is destroyed. That right is not contingent on any activation, authorization, transfer or revocation service from the copyright holder, it is inherent and inalienably stored in my copy. That I can't make copies for sale, public performance and so on is fair enough.

        You might of course say that is unreasonable and that I have no right to dictate what terms they should sell copies under, even though they affect my use of it in ways that has nothing do to with the copyright holder's law, but you are wrong. Courts have upheld rights that the copyright holder doesn't want to grant, it is not an absolute right. The fact that everything is now licensed, not sold is another symptom of this disease, in which they both legally and technologically go into my living room and tell me what I can and can't do.

        People "confirm demand" because they are demand. And I will get my supply from those who provide the superior product. In that sense, it seems awfully stupid make your product artificially inferior, but what do I know. I'm only a consumer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ursabear ( 818651 )
      Doing your own thing is very good. Making music is a true joy and a pleasure on the deepest of levels

      But, on topic... It seems that most articles, of the type linked to on the BBC, seem to focus on file sharing, not on proliferation of copied music files. File sharing unto itself is a wonderful thing. I constantly share out/send out music files (mine, not stuff copied from others' works) using file sharing software. P2P is also great for lots of legitimate things, such as large high-res photography files,
    • by MostAwesomeDude ( 980382 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:27PM (#16472361) Homepage
      Agreed. One of the sad side effects of Idiot America is that the new generation doesn't appreciate amazing guitarwork or groovy bass lines or solid time or meaningful lyrics. Guitarists once were asked how often they practiced; nowadays they're asked how they manage to get on the radio so much.

      Support artists who don't bow down before the RIAA. There are people, like me, that only publish under Creative Commons and won't ever sign a record contract. Find them, listen to them, support them. Odds are they sound better than anything you'll find on the radio.

      Above all, stop buying the music! Most music is not worth the cartel's price of $20 a CD. Hell, I could get three weeks of gas to commute to university and work for $20. The RIAA is still making roughly $40 billion a year. Maybe you working alone can't make a difference. That's fine. There's more than just a few of us. We are already clear enough on our position and large enough in numbers that it is scaring the shit out of these fat-cat businessmen, and forcing them to react in a rather panicked manner.

      They aren't suing people for the hell of it, and they aren't suing people to recoup money. They're doing it to instill fear. Show them that you aren't afraid to defy them.
      • Support artists who don't bow down before the RIAA. There are people, like me, that only publish under Creative Commons and won't ever sign a record contract. Find them, listen to them, support them. Odds are they sound better than anything you'll find on the radio.

        In theory, this seems the best way to go. The problem is that the majority of people need to be weaned off of the nipple of mainstream music. Where can people go to get such music? Part of evangilizing a boycott is helping people find an a

    • If you want to support musicians forget about paying for the CD go to the concert and buy a t-shirt. " Touring is simply far more profitable than selling CDs, explains Jim Guerinot, who manages Gwen Stefani (No. 16, $23.9 million). "With CDs, you're making between fifteen and twenty-five percent royalty," he says. "On the road you get a royalty of eighty-five to ninety percent" [from ticket sales]. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9447993/th e _richest_rock_stars_of_2006 [rollingstone.com]
      If the majority of musi
    • Or make your own music. That's the best of all.

      George Harrison and Michael Bolton tried this but still got sued and lost. See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton. What the cases had in common was that the defendants had subconsciously plagiarized an existing copyrighted musical work. In fact, is it even possible not to [slashdot.org]?

    • Since the RIAA began their suicidal jihad, I taught myself to play the guitar. I'm no virtuoso or even very good by any objective measure, but there's about 100 times the satisfaction and enjoyment in playing the 10 tunes I know than in just listening to any song I've ever heard.

      and the bastards are running a "Jihad" against the tab sharing sites... alledgedly, someone sharing their personal interpretation of the notes being played is a copyright violation...

      It doesn't help their sales when the professiona

  • by Aperculum ( 881549 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:46AM (#16471477)
    "a laboratory assistant has been charged in Finland"

    Oh my god! Our safe haven is compromised! *flees to sweden*
  • I hardly think the International Federation of the Porno^H^H^H^H^HPhonographic Industry would be considered the international relative of the Motion Picture Association of America. I think you're getting your *AA's mixed up. Perhaps you meant the Recording Industry Association of America?
  • by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @11:57AM (#16471733)
    the more star systems will slip through your fingers....
  • A parson [wikipedia.org] has been served with action? Who knew the clergy were itchin' for the latest Snoop Dogg so bad they couldn't wait for it to ship!
  • Intimidation ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by quiberon2 ( 986274 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:01PM (#16471827)
    Copyright law is fine ... well, actually, I would rather that it had been left the way that the Berne Convention had it about 20 years ago, and we should have spent our efforts understanding what it was, rather than changing it.

    But the owners of commercial content ... Star Wars DVDs, if you like ... are going round intimidating people away from doing things that they have a perfect right to do, such as putting recordings of them singing songs they have written themselves on their own web sites for distribution to anyone in the world who cares to take them.

    There should be some sanction against a cartel intimidaring someone into paying when no money is due. Is there any such sanction ? Jail time for fraud, maybe ?

  • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:07PM (#16471967) Homepage Journal
    Someday, maybe soon, the most popular peer-to-peer networks will have TOR or something similar built in and turned on by default, with the seed- and data-carrying nodes hidden behind .onion. Yeah the speed sucks but subpeonas suck worse.

    I'd love to see the RIAA try to shut down a beowulf cluster of those babies.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      the major problem is that tor eats up lots of bandwidth people generally dont want to switch bandwidth with safety until there is an actual threat the amount of people the RIAA etc have subpeoned etc is laughable compared to the number of people using these services the chances of being caught are very remote however i think at least end to end encryption is in order so the ISP cant spy on you
  • Sue people until profits are restored.

    I like it. It's catchy, people will fear you. Seriously.
  • Greed and Creativity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hypoxide ( 993092 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @12:20PM (#16472203)
    Since when do they go hand-in-hand?

    Music is not a commodity, it is an art. It is not meant to be sold, it is meant to be heard and played. It is meant to be shared and it will be. Try as it may, the corporate music industry cannot stop this movement. I look forward to its rapture.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kabocox ( 199019 )
      Music is not a commodity, it is an art. It is not meant to be sold, it is meant to be heard and played. It is meant to be shared and it will be. Try as it may, the corporate music industry cannot stop this movement. I look forward to its rapture.

      What century did you walk out of? Music has hardly ever been about art. It's always been about leeching much from sponsors. Usually they were rich nobles, merchants, or priests. You know what. This all really started about copyright over song lyrics and sheet music.
  • Legal Alternatives (Score:2, Insightful)

    by k33l0r ( 808028 )
    "In each of the 17 countries involved in today's actions there are legal music services available to consumers. There is no excuse."

    How 'bout providing some legal alternatives that HAVEN"T been crippled with the infestation known as DRM (I call it the Devil's Recording Medium)

    This I CAN agree with:
    "Critics of the IFPI's policy argue that the music industry is targetting its natural audience and that the real causes of CD sales declining are DVD sales, computer games sales and pricing."

    Another reason
  • Now they are suing people for using the BitTorrent site. Maybe they can get a google cache for when they take it down.
  • No excuse (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davitf ( 522408 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2006 @01:47PM (#16473883)
    "In each of the 17 countries involved in today's actions there are legal music services available to consumers. There is no excuse."

    Actually I can think of a few excuses:

    • the music I want is not available in any legal music service in my country
    • the music I want is not available in legal music services in a format I can use
    • the legal music services restrict my usage of the music in ways that make it less useful to me than "illegal" downloads
    • I cannot use any of the payment methods offered by the legal music services
    • I want to listen to the music in its entirety to decide if it is worth buying
    • I do not have enough money to buy the music I want (but intend to buy it when I do)

    Some of them may be less acceptable than others, but the notion that the simple existence of a legal music service in a country means that there isn't any excuse for downloading music there is, in my opinion, extremely short-sighted.

Take an astronaut to launch.

Working...