The 10 "Inconvienient Truths" of File Sharing 587
54mc writes "The IFPI, an international recording industry organization, has released a list of Ten "Inconvenient Truths" of file sharing. Though the group has a vested interest, it's still an interesting read as it tears apart some of the most common arguments in favor of file sharing. Ars Technica follows up with a more thorough explanation of some of the points. 'Point five is an attempt to turn the "innovation" argument on its head. For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and "manufactured" celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away. And then there's point seven, which isn't an "inconvenient truth" at all but more of a rant against those who prefer giving copyright holders less than absolute control over reproduction rights. An "anti-copyright movement" does exist, but most of the critical voices in the debate recognize the value of copyright--and actually produce copyrighted works themselves (Lawrence Lessig, etc.).'"
Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they were wildly successful doing so. In fact, it's not entirely new and represents something of a return to the patronage system of protegees. The best at their art were not necessarily the most famous then either.
Just take it from Lloyd Christmas (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey! The Monkees. They were a major influences on The Beatles." ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, man, don't harsh the mellow! Otherwise, talentless shlubs like Pat Boone would have had to resort to giving handjobs at truck stops to get by.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the same with any popular act. Instead of trying to discover some fresh artists they go with the "safe bet" and mass produce the over-produced clones in order to pad their wallets. As a business strategy is may seem sound. Some may argue that it even works. The problem is that because they are not going out and really cultivating new and different acts and are using other methods to exclude such music on our airwaves (payola, Clear Channel monopoly etc) we don't get to know if other acts would be as profitable for them or even more so. So their safe bet may be slitting their throat and many observing the trend in declining music sales points to this.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
And being the free market the point of a company is to maximize shareholders profits and not too bring the next great artist to the spotlight. Sometimes being the minority in market (aka your taste vs the rest of the population) leaves you only the selection of fried burgers when you really want a great steak. It sucks.
But unless every adult in the world is going to start blowing all their money on stuff the teenage demographic will reign supreme!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe these stupid parents should keep their money and spend it on reducing their debt, or buying themselves a CD or two, instead of handing it all over to their spoiled kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Communication is of increasing importance to newer generations, and if you refuse to accept it you'll just become an old fogey.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:4, Informative)
To call mommy or daddy without talking to a stranger.
To call 9-1-1 when they are in danger.
For mommy or daddy to call them when they are lost in the mall.
Any child old enough to use a telephone is old enough to use a cell phone. And any parent with the means to provide their child a cell phone should. And those cell phones should be locked down to reference only a few numbers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But giving them a deluxe full-featured phone so they can play games, surf the net, and text msg all their friends (all of which add hefty fees to your monthly bill)? Forget it.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh? Kids have always wandered around on their own in "familiar territory", past the age of 6 or so (it's a bit depressing to think of a mall as familiar territory, but it's certainly true these days for a large portion of the population). Has American society become so insanely dysfunctional that this isn't possible anymore?!?
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The point of a company is to maximize shareholders profits and not too bring the next great artist to the spotlight."
And the point of copyright is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Seems to me that if a corporation is using the rights we grant it to perform in a way that abuses and undermines the reason we grant them their rights, revoke their copyrights.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of it is music that I never would have expected to even be out there. A 7th grade girls choir singing Rammstein, Radiohead and The Divinyls (Scala)? An experimental post-punk band reciting long treatices about the history of torture to music that frightens my parrot (TEXT)? And songs just as creepy assembled largely out of 1991 Gulf War news clips (Chris Burke)? A polka group whose biggest hit is "In Heaven, There Is No Beer" (Brave Combo)? I mean, it goes on and on.
I'd argue that point #5 is mostly correct for many P2P networks (Gnutella, etc), but not for all forms of file sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past 40 years kids and the generally stupid have seen a big increase in disposable income (though maybe not total income).
The music industry are simply going after all that money.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
The IFPI is essentially just trying to mindfuck people into believing that nothing needs to change in the music industry and everything needs to change with P2P file sharing. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle -- the music industry needs to learn a better model for making money and P2P file sharing networks need to develop methods of revenue generation that repays artists and producers, while at the same time allowing relatively free exchange of music for casual sharers.
If someone can come up with that solution, they will not only make everyone happy, but they will likely make themselves rich in the process.
2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate (Score:4, Interesting)
Two questions for the Peanut Gallery:
1) What do you think the payment compliance rate would be if it were voluntary?
2) Would you pay per play? 2 cents? 5 cents? How about if there were a cap at a dollar?
I had a framework for doing this worked out but never did any of the market research.
Re:2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate (Score:5, Interesting)
Pay a fixed rate per month. I'm not sure how much this should be, but not a huge amount. Have iTunes (or whatever) record a play count of each track each month. At the end of the month, the money should be divided amongst that artists I listen to (assuming any are still alive), with a percentage determined according to the play count. If I don't upload a play count, then it should be distributed amongst the most popular artists of the month (for the privacy nuts), or according to my history (if I have one). In exchange for this, I want to be allowed to listen to any music that has been created.
This system would reward artists who create pieces which I want to listen to again and again. People who release an album that people buy, listen to once, and then decided they didn't like would get hardly any money. People who make music that finds its way into a lot of peoples default playlists would make more. I would be able to copy music that I liked to my friends, and if they listened to it then it would benefit the artists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Monthly rate (Score:4, Interesting)
The subscription model is already fairly successful, and most subscription services will sell you a given track -- those that you buy, you can continue to use even after you cancel the service. The model is fine. What needs to happen is that DRM needs to all but disappear.
Using the artists-get-paid-for-plays model is novel, but would require some sort of DRM to work; you'd need to limit the players that could use that music so that stats would be properly reported and aggregated. It could be less-restrictive (i.e. work on any machine participating in the service), but it would still have to exist.
I don't necessarily have a problem with DRM in cases where it's very clear that you don't own the content (such as the subscription tracks). However, it's essential that tracks offered for purchase be DRM-free (you either own it or you don't, there should be no gray area).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd envisage different scales of payment and so on so that you can a
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070531
Either it has been relabeled or the discussion of file sharing was not directly addressed in the title.
That being said, it reads more like an opinion/rant rather than any piece of truth.
Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?
AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels. But psychoanalysis of their motivations can hardly be called "truth"
Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
How dare they make such a mean-spirited threat
Guess we'll have to look underground for our underground music.
ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Which ISPs? Will their helpdesk help me set up my p2p program so I can download some tunes?
The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Pontificating is actually big business these days. Bloggers, politicians, talking heads all do it.
However, this hardly counts as a truth. As mentioned elsewhere, it is more of a whine, or a rant.
Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure.
Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Most people have this idea that it might be wrong because of the paid ad campaigns but they don't really feel it is wrong or they would have stopped by now.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, in other news...
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use computers running Microsoft Windows to track their resources and finances.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use oxygen as part of their metabolic processes.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use explosives to blow things up.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups us
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, a lot of their points seem to be direct responses to many of the Slashdot/digg memes.
"Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure."
Believe it or not, this is lost on lots of people. Just a few weeks ago when an article about software piracy in India came accross Slashdot, a common retort was that the average income in India is something like $2,000 a year, and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dumb question. It's so profitable because Pirate Bay has zero production costs. The music industry doesn't because it actually pays the producers of the music and invests in its production.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized
Re: (Score:2)
As Tom Petty once said, "I like rock because just about the time it start to suck, something shakes i
Lol they're saying they fight for the little guy (Score:2)
"Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars. "
Think about that a sec. The suggestion is that they put a certain amount of their revenue toward sure things, and a certain amount toward high-risk, high reward speculation. This is the right way to invest.
But you don't change the % devoted to each kind of investment based on the size of the portfolio, do you?
Ye
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, near as I can tell manufactured celebrities were the norm *before* computer networks existed outside of the educational laboratories. I seem to even remember a Brady Bunch episode about the subject- from what, 1972?
inconvenient truth #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix and Blockbuster online have all the movies you can watch for about $20 month. You only have to walk to the mailbox.
You can find trailers and movie reviews online as well to help you decide how to spend your money.
Laziness is kind of a lame excuse.
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I'm only saying no to the *paying* part. The recording industry has screwed people for years, and now it's their turn.
>The truth is that the majority of people sharing music are the ones who have heard a song on the radio or TV or wherever, and decided they want that song. But they also decided they don't want to pay for it. I want a Ferrari, but I am not willing to pay the price, so I drive a Honda instead.
The
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting point. However, what your point lacks is quantity/quality. If it's worth money, how much is it worth? Pirating isn't being done by the masses to give the F-You to the record company and "the man" just because they are a big company, but because they do not believe the product/service they supply is not worth the value they're presenting it at.
Simply put, if pirates could buy brand a new movie on a standard DL-DVD without a box (toss it in a paper slip) for $4-$5, pirates would probably buy it oppose to copying. However, $15-$25 for a new DVD film is not worth it for most people. They probably already paid $10 to see it in the theater or can pay $2-4 to rent it and watch it as many times as they want in the week they have it.
A long time ago, I mentioned this 'dream' of mine. Big box retails (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc) getting a high quality DVD burning machine. You walk up to the counter, ask the person for the film you want, they'll punch in the movie id into their computer and the machine plops out a fresh high-quality burned DVD with sticker art. The clerk tosses the DVD into a paper slip and charges you $4. Maybe you rested a DVD case, and he charges you an extra $2 and prints out the DVD case insert, pulls a plastic DVD case off the shelf and inserts the slip art.
The consumer walks out the door with a $6 DVD, the store doesn't need to bother about inventory space, besides the machine and computer containing the DVD image catalog. Movie houses don't need to spend the time and money running DVD making machines, paying truckers and shippers to drop it off at distribution centers, etc. All they do, is download it into their customers DVD Making machine computers on release day. They can even setup a distribution network (hello bit-torrent), so they only have to upload it into the central Big Box Store system and Big Box Store can be responsible for the band-width for uploading it into all it's stores.
The cost is still more than DIYers but low enough to entice those who might pirate to just buy instead. They don't have to go out and buy a stack of DVD media. They probably get better quality DVD since they're not compressing the image, or removing audio tracks to fit onto a non DL-DVD. They also get a nice fancy art-work sticker, instead of just scrawling the name on with a sharpie marker.
The only way to fight the pirates is to offer the service at the value that it's worth. I think that, in general, people feel the cost of watching a movie isn't what it use to be in a world where entertainment is at your finger tips anywhere you go, from portable video game players, to cell phones, to the internet.
Movie theaters are not the only place one can go to 'escape' reality, anymore. Since the prices continue to climb along with entertainment competition, it's only natural to see demand drop off. It goes for saying that I often won't see a film in the theater anymore (unless it's a blockbuster or I'm a fan) and even then, I make every effort to go the the cheaper matinée. It's now 'wait until DVD' because I can rent it for $1-3. The same philosophy probably goes to those who use to buy DVD's for their collection. However odd it is, that such a crime is fairly socially acceptable.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They lost a sale, but not due to piracy. I didn't decide to download
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
The mafia does provide a valuable service. They give me protection for my business. It's just that if they weren't around, I wouldn't need the protection. Oh, you were talking about the RIAA and MPAA... what's the difference?
Re:inconvenient truth #1 (Score:4, Insightful)
But... you ARE going to pirate it? Do you even LISTEN to yourself?
Re:inconvenient truth #1 (Score:5, Funny)
Downloading. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Great, so you're passing on supporting one form of evil (overpriced DRMed downloadable music) and supporting another evil (Best Buy) instead.
Stop supporting evil and buy music from someplace non-evil, like your local used CD store (or an online one like secondspin.com).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great post.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not for ALL filesharing for music, but rather using it for recognition and buying albums to support their cause.
Re: (Score:2)
As for it helping the Indie bands... It would help them more, not less, if artists had to specifically give their music away, instead of people just sharing whatever they like. Indie bands
Word fogging (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Quick responses... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Previous Russian law allowed AllOfMP3. It no longer does. So?
3) Copying a CD from my friend doesn't (yet) count as terrorism, guys.
4) Very few people care about the label behind their music, pirated or not.
5) So the labels can't afford small artists - Good thing they don't actually need labels anymore!
6) That would break the law. File suit, if you actually believe such BS.
7) Boo-hoo, I don't generate tax revenue. Hear the violins?
8) "Bought Pirate Products" - Change the subject, much?
9) The law already disallows piracy. Most people just don't care.
10) I've discovered over half of the artists currently on my playlist via questionably-legal means.
file sharing is "wrong" (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringment may be illegal, but "illegal" is not the same thing as "wrong."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:file sharing is "wrong" (Score:5, Interesting)
"Society" doesn't have any say in whether those things are wrong either. If something is wrong it remains wrong regardless of the majority opinion. In any event, it doesn't really matter. For all property-right violations the legitimacy of the punishment is inherent in the offence. A murderer cannot rationally argue against corporal punishment; a thief cannot rationally argue against being fined. Either the defendent must agree that the action was wrong, and thus deserves punishment, or they must claim that the action was right, and thus the punishment (being the same action) must also be right.
Subjective morality only becomes an issue when you attempt to criminalize things that are either victimless, or acceptable to those committing the "crime". Copyright violations fall in the latter category (or possibly both, depending on your point of view). Let the punishment fit the crime -- prohibit "pirates" from holding copyrights. See if they care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) PirateBay has ads. So what? So does Slashdot.
Yes! Right from the start they lost me with this one. The only thing that it means is that they're upset about that money not going to them. Honestly though, PirateBay offers a service that people want, and the recording industry is not efficiently providing that service right now. I don't think it's such a shock that other organizations are stepping up—even illegally—to the plate to take over, and making money from that decision.
4) Very few people care about the label behind their music, pirated or not.
I do, but not in that same way. I'm much more likely to try o
If you fileshare, the terrorists have won! (Score:2)
It's a very interesting how they managed to sneak in terrorists.
But I don't understand how counterfeit CDs and filesharing have to do with each other.
I don'g get number 4. Can anyone explain to me what the inconvenience is?
Point 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
11) So all that justifies:
a) A legal vendetta against a disabled single mom, children, dead people, etc.
b) Treating out customers like criminals
c) Trying to extort money from and/or destroy any channel the industry does not
control (like Internet radio).
d) Bribing lawmakers to extend copyrights ad infinitum.
e) Attempting to eliminate the legal concept of 'fair use'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No! It's
public LegalThreats Ballmer(Developers developers) throws Chair
Only ten? (Score:5, Funny)
11. Illegal filesharing puts puppies in blenders.
12. Illegal filesharing makes the baby jeebus cry.
13. Illegal filesharing leads to people removing the tags from their mattres.
14. Illegal filesharing causes male-pattern baldness.
15. Illegal fileshreing can make you teh ghay.
16. Illegal filesharing can make you teh straight.
17. Illegal filesharing killed Chuck Norris.
18. Illegal filesahring fills the tubes.
19. Illegal filesharing caused Pangea to split.
20. Illegal filesharing makes international trade groups release incredibly stupid 'top ten' bullshit like this, only cementing people's desire to fileshare further.
Seriously. Fuck these people and their little top ten list
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It took some time and some creative googlemapping, but DONE!
I'm still trying to find the right hole to do the same to this one though...
Re: (Score:2)
hahahahaha! They must have been using TCP/IP over bongos [slashdot.org] (I know, Pangea was a long time before bongos, settle down).
Yes, I know my user id is high. Yes, I've been lurking for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chuck Norris is out back and would like to "talk" to you about your statement that ANYTHING can kill him. Dude he looks pissed.
Re:Only ten? (Score:5, Funny)
Pangea... hmm, never heard of them. Anyone got a torrent?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
They ignore the inconvienent truths such as....
If the product was available in a form and at a price people were willing to pay, they would buy it.
Record companies are refusing to adopt new standards and ideas that people want. Mp3 players are things that people really really like. They also want to be able to play that song anywhere. DRM music files do not allow that so they either rip the sings or pirate them.
song trading has went on forever. Mix tapes, trading Records or CD's etc.. has happened as long as audio tape existed. I traded Reels with friends of albums. (reel to Reel tape, way before casettes.)
Most P2P file sharing is garbage. Most people are not happy with the quality of the music they download, the id3 tags are wrong, the music is ripped with a crappy ripper (itunes or Media player) etc....
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
But, they used to buy MORE than they do now. And the form in which you usually buy it (say, on a CD) remains available. What's changed is that people are no longer willing to pay what the artists ask for their recordings because they've found an easy way to rip it off, instead. The number of people who really, actually, thoughtfully are downloading pirated copies so that they have a more flexible version of something they've actually purchased
Record companies are refusing to adopt new standards and ideas that people want. Mp3 players are things that people really really like. They also want to be able to play that song anywhere.
Unless, of course, you take into account the publisers that ARE starting to sell non-DRMed files for that exact reason. When you say "record companies," you say it like you're describing all of them accurately, and that you know exactly what they're all collectively going to be doing for the next 12 months. They're not a homogenous group, and they're busy working on it, and on retaining as customers the very artists that every seems to be happy to rip off.
song trading has went on forever. Mix tapes, trading Records or CD's etc.. has happened as long as audio tape existed. I traded Reels with friends of albums. (reel to Reel tape, way before casettes.)
And did you really have hundreds of thousands or millions or anonymous friends with whom you shared bit-accurate exact copies? Really?
Most P2P file sharing is garbage. Most people are not happy with the quality of the music they download, the id3 tags are wrong, the music is ripped with a crappy ripper (itunes or Media player) etc....
Oh, well, then that makes it OK, I guess, to rip off the really good quality stuff from someone else, then. Yeesh.
When you pirate mp3s you're downloading communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of that spoof RIAA poster when you pirate mp3s you're downloading communism [museumofhoaxes.com].
93% of counterfeit CDs and DVDs comes from China? (Score:2)
The 10 Convenient Truths About File Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
2. It encourages innovation. While it might sound less than ideal from a public relations standpoint, file sharing encourages programmers and problem solvers to think of more interesting and innovative methods to circumvent the measures put in place, and it furthers the study of peer-to-peer technology. You went from Napster, to Kazaa, to bitTorrent, with massive leaps at each step.
3. It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain artists and one wants to know that they like the artist before they shell out the cash for a CD from Amazon or eBay. And lets face it, the radio stations will seldom, if ever, play bands like Screeching Weasel, Cara Dillon, Celtae, R.A.M.B.O., or even some fo the more popular people like Jann Arden or Sinead O'Conner and Sarah Brightman. In fact, case in point: Rage Against the Machine. I called a local radio station when they said, "ok, the lines are open, tell us what you want to hear, because this is a radio station powered by YOU!". I called and requested RATM, what did they say? "Oh, sorry, that is too hard for our listeners. I just said okay, and turned off the radio. Barely ever play it anymore.
4. It helps gain artist recognition and exposure. Had file sharing come along, how many of you might know who BoA or Ayumi Hamazaki are?
5.It forces artists to be more creative, and less like the Back Street Boys and Spice Girls. If everyone of the bands sound the same, it forces more people to look elsewhere for the music that fits their tastes.
6. It breaks the copyright holder's regime. I'm sorry, this is going to piss off a lot of individuals around here, since a lot of people pay lip service to the "benefiot" of copyright, but the system is fundamentally flawed. Ever since the Bono-act, the fact that you could "extend" an artificial monopoly is just plain WRONG.
7. It also helps bring artists that would have no exposure form the record labels to break into the mainstream (or at least get a few more listeners and feedback).
8. It exposes people to more than the drivel that comes off the radio today. I like to equate most music on the radio and that is being produced by the big labels as "dime store fiction". In other words, a waste of plastic. Now there is some music (in every genre) that isn't produced by the big name labels that is VERY good. This allows people not "in the know" about the "scene" to become exposed to it.
9. For the love of all that is HOLY, file sharing does not only mean music. Lots of stuff (that is public domain or otherwise free) is distributed via filesharing. Not to mention the amount of pr0n.
10. ??? & Profit! (sorry, I couldn't resist)
pro copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh? (Score:2)
For me, what label an album is released on is the major criterion in determining how it will be procured - surely I am not the only one?
Allow me to preach to the choir (Score:5, Interesting)
See items 5 and 10 (paraphrased here): File sharing forces record companies to devote resources to big-name marketing vehicles rather than "artists" [item 5]; You won't find new music through file-sharing because it's mostly "popular music" [item 10]. It sounds to me as though they're playing into the hands of the infringers, then, by continuing to produce and promote exactly those things that are the bread and butter of their nemeses.
However, I will concede that point 3 is correct. In fact, I purchased a bootleg Britney Spears CD from a poorly-disguised gentleman calling himself Mr. "Lin-Baden" last week.
Ten inconvenient answers (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Besides the obvious "so?" answer, they, too, gotta pay their ISPs. Given the traffic they got, that bill could be a tad bit more than the average person can earn with honest work (for the IFPI, this is usually less than 3000 bucks a month).
2. AOMP3 has a license from the Russian equivalent. Care to tell me why globalisation is only good if it works for the company and against the customer?
3. I don't respond to arguments based on terrorism or child porn. They get old and are usually based on thin air. Like in this case. Care to show me ANY kind of proof (or at least a forged statistic) where Ozzy has been buying his AKs with money he got from selling bootlegs?
4. A quite blatant generalisation. Fact: It's often impossible to get a "honest" version of some out of print indie song. Many would buy it, if they could. Though, if you take a look through the various "old school" musicians who took their time to build up a support base, you'll see that their CDs sell quite well, often despite (or maybe because?) they refuse to use DRM or other crippling means, despite their fans being able to get the material easily through P2P means. Yet still, they buy the song because they want to show the artist their support. Check album sales for reference.
I can understand, though, that it's hard to sell some overhyped crap of a noname that you'll drop the next month.
5. Yes, and since the internet has been your bane since the New Kids on the Block (that was in
6. Car ads praise the maneuverability and speed of their cars, are they now liable for bank robberies and their cars being used for getaways? Phone services offer pre-paid phones where you don't have to go through the hassle of filling out forms, are they now liable for those phones being used in kidnapping calls? And don't make me start about guns.
7. The copyright world doesn't either. It outsources jobs to sweatshops and siphons money off our youth. With the difference, that they DO know how the commercial world runs. Unfortunately, though, they know little about art.
8. No, it usually is caused by people not wanting getting their computer infested with spyware or other unwanted "goodies", or that the content simply doesn't work on their system because the industry fails to conform with a standard, and so they have to resort to other means to get to use what they bought. Not buying because one is not able to afford the content is rarely if ever a reason. Maybe ignoring students.
9. Most people realized that it's near impossible to navigate the copyright laws and that they're guilty of breaking a law anyway if they don't live like a hermit. So many thought, why bother trying? More laws will only make this effect worse.
10. Actually P2P software is a tool. I use it to get (and spread) new versions of Linux. MMORPGs spread their updates through them. Others find music in it, decide that it's good and go buy the CD. And of course there are those that don't discriminate and download simply everything there is, hunting and gathering is a strong impulse in the human. Generally, though, P2P tools are simply that, a tool. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad, it depends on the person using it. Like the cars, the phones or the guns.
Mostly pretty accurate, I suppose... (Score:2)
Are they still promoting the fallacy that every copy equals a lost sale?
I do believe they are losing money, but nearly so much as they say. I think we all know this to be true. I also think that there is going to have to be some acceptable level, or the restrictions will be so severe as to only hamper legitimate use.
Now, you'll
Heres an inconvienient truth... (Score:2)
8) Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
if you are buying a hard copy, it isnt file "sharing"...
The REAL Inconvenient Truth (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I have a couple of minutes to spare... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. We know. We can tell because there are ads there.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
This is more of an inconvenient mistruth. i.e. it's technically true but highly misleading. AllOfmp3 had the money availalbe to rights holders. The rights holders refused. "Facing criminal proceedings" is very weaselly. It doesn't mean they're guilty. Reputable copyright maintaining companies such as Microsoft and Sony have also faced criminal proceedings. MS were found guilty. Sony settled over the rootkit fiasco, I believe.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
This has nothing to do with file swapping. There is considerably less sympathy for commercial pirates.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
And we don't care that we don't care.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
No it fucking doesn't! That's a filthy lie and they know it. The finances don;t work like that. It's not about money recieved it's about return on investment expected.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Ehhmmm... They provide a network connection. Are we ghoing to charge the labels with selling CDs to pirates?
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
The FSF is generally considered part of the "anti-copyright movement". Free software creates a lot of jobs. 8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
No. It's caused by a general ambivalence about the rights of considerably wealthier foreigners.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
More weasel words. What does "wrong" mean in this context? Most people know it's illegal. They form their own opinions on the ethics of it. Some people evidently consider it a greater "wrong" to spend money on stuff they don't have to.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Wow. An actual truth. What went wrong there?
Total PR BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything referred to as "an inconvenient truth" automatically sets my BS meter going. This list of "truths" is pure PR bullcrap.
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric. This is the same industry who argues that listening to the radio is free, but makes millions if not billions of dollars on radio advertising. They run commercials in my market talking about how radio is and should continue to be free, and to please patronize the businesses being advertised, because YOU WOULDN'T WANT US TO START CHARGING YOU NOW, WOULD YOU??
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia. Er ... so? What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money. This one's really pathetic. Playing the terrorism card? That's just the bullshit cherry on the bullshit sundae. The point's been made already but it bears repeating: what does the sale of bootleg CDs have to do with file sharing on the internet? Furthermore, SOME TERRORISTS have used BANKS to launder their money. Guess we should all get rid of our savings and checking accounts, cause *gasp* we might be supporting terrorism!!! This kind of argument has no credibility because the whole "ohnoes terrorism!" argument has been overused so much that it no longer has any weight .. not even when it should be considered seriously.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label. Loaded language much? This list is replete with very badly biased language. Let me rephrase it: 4. People who share music digitally don't care what labels the songs they trade are. And all that is is a boo-hoo for the record industry. No, we don't particularly care about labels. We care about music. DEAL WITH IT.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars. HAHAHA! Ohh, so THAT'S what they did with all the obscene profits they made from the illegal overpricing of CDs all those years. They invested them in REAL TALENT! OMG where do I sign up to let them gouge me some more?
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale. Again, spin city supreme. ISP often advertise music as a benefit, and then let their users use them as they see fit. I fail to see how this is an argument against me wanting to share digital music with my friends and family. Try again.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little. Very few political movements create jobs, exports, tax revenues or economic growth. They exist to fight to enact change in laws or government. "Pontificating". "about which they know little". This is an ad hominem attack on people they disagree with, nothing more.
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners. Err, real piracy is caused by criminals who attack ships at sea, pillage, rape and murder victims (or sell them on the slave market), and this is a product of pure criminal greed and amorality. What, you meant file sharing? Oh, well yes, this is correct. People do not share music because they can't AFFORD it. They do it because it is FAIR USE and, if they're doing it on p
Point 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Inconvenient truth #11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Predictably, the "media" companies are attempting to resist this change in the balance of power by making an issue of just about anything that erodes their market share. Thus, the increased interest in DRM and file sharing.
Re:The whole list (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Forest? Nah, I just see a bunch of trees.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if you really want to inspire some people that don't always work together (just throwing a dart, here... let's say, The Chieftains along with Van Morrison) to do something that you can enjoy, you've got to convince them to go on tour together? I'm personally very happy when people that will NEVER have their lives lined up right to tour together nevertheless put up
Re:The whole list (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The whole list is kinda disappointing (Score:2)
I'm afraid I don't see the contradiction between success and being "anti-establishment." I didn't know being anti-establishment meant taking a vow of poverty. Considering how they've responded to the law and government, I'd say they're not in the government's or the recording industry's pockets.
Re:The whole list (Score:5, Insightful)
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Aren't these counter to each other?
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like that word more because it reminds me of Number Munchers which is a sweet game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part about this disingenuous "Inconvenient Truths of File Sharing" list is that some of the points are about commercial piracy (making counterfeit CDs and DVDs), which has nothing at all to do with online file sharing. That's li