RSS

Are “Hopeless” Copyright Wars Against P2P “Our New Prohibition?”

Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig says using outdated copyright laws to sue illegal file-sharers hasn’t caused a decrease in illegal file-sharing, and that in fact “a whole generation of children has been raised to think the law is an ass—and an ass that is to be ignored.”

Lawrence Lessig, professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Society, wrote an op-ed in Playboy magazine (yes, there are articles in it) recently in which he argues that “ridiculous copyright laws,” and the subsequent war against illegal file-sharing, are to blame for creating another of this country’s “hopeless wars of prohibition” like alcohol and drugs.

“Over the past decade, copyright extremists have been waging an ever more vicious war against our kids in the name of preserving the sanctity of copyrights,” he writes. “They have succeeded in getting the law strengthened at least a dozen times. The RIAA has filed lawsuits against more than 35,000 people since 2003.”

We know the MPAA regularly says that piracy funds terrorism even though it clearly has nothing to do with kids sharing files online. Yet, it still uses the word “terrorism” knowing the power it has post-9/11 to get the attention of lawmakers in order to get legislation passed.

In fact a recent article pushed by AFACT, a copyright holder body backed by the MPAA in Australia, showcases the audacity of their efforts with an article titled “Movie Pirates Funding Terrorists.” It tries to make the argument that pirated movies are being downloaded by terrorists around the globe, burned to DVD,  and then sold for huge profits to finance their operations.

To make the point hit home it says that such profits “may have been” funneled to the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah who just so happens to have been responsible for killing 88 partying teens packed in Bali nightclubs back in 2002. The not so subtle message is that if you upload a CAM you’re aiding Islamist nutjobs.

Talk about grasping at straws.

Lessig also criticizes how “our new prohibition” is leading to once unimaginable responses like expelling kids from college or permanently disconnecting people from the Internet.

Are the loss of education and the tools for participation in a democratic state really worth the perceived losses of sharing music and movies for no financial gain?

“An important test for whether a certain law should exist is whether that law will work—not because we shouldn’t clutter the law books with useless or ineffective regulation but because a culture swimming in laws that are not respected is a culture that breeds contempt for the law and for the rule of law,” adds Lessig.”

“That is precisely what is happening with our kids. In the decade since we began to wage this copyright war, we have not reduced peer-to-peer file sharing. It has only increased. We have not reduced the class of kids engaging in behavior they know to be wrong. We have only caused that class to grow, as more people know the behavior is illegal and engage in it nonetheless.”

The now decade-long “copyright war” has done little to stem the tide of P2P, which has only steadily increased since it began, and has instead served to breed “contempt for the law and for the rule of law” because file-sharers know what’s rally behind it – greedy copyright holder groups and not the artists themselves.

“Measured along any dimension of success, this war has been a failure: Artists don’t have more money, businesses haven’t had a clear set of rules to compete against, and a whole generation of children has been raised to think the law is an ass—and an ass that is to be ignored,” he says.

Moreover, what makes the “copyright war” in\intrinsically foolish, much like the ones on alcohol or drugs, is that there is no way to achieve victory. Technology will always win in the end and it’s time copyright holders and govt realized this.

So what’s Lessig’s advice?

“Congress should move on to the task of remaking the copyright system in order to make sense of digital technologies, not fight them.”

I agree.

Stay tuned.

[email protected]



Jared Moya
I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates. Twitter | Google Plus
Scott Kirby
Scott Kirby

Michael I read your blog: you're just another guy who targets the people downloading as "the bad guys" and NOT the real bad guys - the monolithic and despotic major labels and RIAA. They, once again, are implementing an illegal marketplace!! They offer their wares at a fixed price (Michael this is NOT legal) and practice collution are MORE than one front. Record contracts that the major offer are all alarmingly similar. The message to artists is cleare; YOU (the artists) do the work and WE (the major labels) make the money. No point for artists to shopping elsewhere. Each contract is practically a template of the same draconian order. We need to BOYCOTT any site that excists that is "sponsored" by the major labels: The money that you spend on sites like ITUNES goes to support terrortists - THE RIAA AND MAJOR LABEL MONOPOLY.

Michael
Michael

Continuing to shoehorn digital copyright issues into the existing legal framework is absolutely a lost cause. The fact that we've seen so little progress on this front is infuriating, quite frankly. 18 months ago I wrote a post concerning the proposed adoption of the 3 strike rule here in the UK, noting the futility of it all - http://lawactually.blogspot.com/2008/02/fighting-piracy-wrong-way.html

Scott Kirby
Scott Kirby

We are forgetting some things here: First the major labels are criminals themselves. Remember prohibition? The Prohibition law didn't stop drinking; it just gave rise to mobsters. The Labels FIX PRICES completely illegally at 99 cents so they don't have to compete with eachother. Man there aren't too many things in our society that are more blatantly illegal than that. PLUS if anyone has heard of PAYOLA well they broke this law for decades. They committed felonies! And we should respect THEM and obey THEIR LAWS? NUTS!!

Grey
Grey

What would change if it became legal to share culture on a non-profit basis, i.e. filesharing? (don't forget that it was legal just a few years ago) * Millions of people would no longer be considered criminals for something they think should be legal. * One of the most despised and most broken laws ever to exist would no longer be a reason to shun laws altogether. * Everybody with an Internet connection would have legal access to an ever increasing part of the culture produced in the entire world. * The media industry would no longer spend billions on anti-copyright campaigns that has made their customers very annoyed. At least the illegal copy of a DVD does not include that. * The media industry would no longer sue or threaten to sue hundreds of thousands of their own customers. Of which a large percent have been proved innocent. * The copyright laws return to their original purpose: to spread culture, not to hinder it. * The media industry, software firms, the artists and other creators would still be earning money in more or less the same way they do today. All independent studies has clearly shown that filesharing has not cost the industry anything, rather the opposite. Some parts, like the CD sale, has declined, but the industries as a hole has earned more, especially concerts and cinemas. * The basic principals for economics would be restored. Anything that exists in an infinite numbers, with a neglectable cost for transport, storage, reproduction and such, should have a price that is almost nil, completely independent of the cost of the original and the level of demand. Anything digital can have an infinite numbers of copies, it has no storage or transport or reproduction cost, and should therefore cost almost nothing. Everything above zero is profit.

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

"* Millions of people would no longer be considered criminals for something they think should be legal." Laws exist to protect minorities from mob rule as much as anyhting else. Those millions don't necessarily get to decide what happens to someone elses property "* One of the most despised and most broken laws ever to exist would no longer be a reason to shun laws altogether." Lessigs argument and this is completely bogus. I seriously doubt you shun laws altogether, do you? Your average college student might download all the indie albums he wants for free but he wont steal from the grocery store. Lessig needs to take humself off the high paid lecture circuit so he can be objecitve, unless his libertarian activism has blinded him to the point to where he actually means stupid shit like what he said in this article. "* Everybody with an Internet connection would have legal access to an ever increasing part of the culture produced in the entire world." You basically do, except where piracy is so rampant that it's not profitable to do business there. Oh, it does actually cost money. If there's no money to buy music, there's no money for internet. Since when is 'access to culture' some kind of right? Really? That in the constitution? Anyway, if you want culture, read a fucking BOOK. It aint expensive. "* The media industry would no longer spend billions on anti-copyright campaigns that has made their customers very annoyed. At least the illegal copy of a DVD does not include that. " Hate to break it to you, most of their customers BUY dvd's at walmart or amazon on impulse. It's mostly kids that download music, families buy most of the DVD's. The kids in college get all self-righteous about it. "* The copyright laws return to their original purpose: to spread culture, not to hinder it." Well Lessigs interpretation of the constitution is not the only one, and if you look at it historically, it was a balancing act between different publishers - the ones who wanted to have contracts with writers and monoplies to print something and all the other ones who were used to just printing whatever they wanted from Europe and making a shit ton of money without giving the writers anything. The people and culture didn't have much to do with it, really. "* The media industry, software firms, the artists and other creators would still be earning money in more or less the same way they do today. All independent studies has clearly shown that filesharing has not cost the industry anything, rather the opposite. Some parts, like the CD sale, has declined, but the industries as a hole has earned more, especially concerts and cinemas." Yeah, it's funny how inflation makes dollar amounts grow. Ticket prices have grown too, as the number of venues has shrunk. Aritsts are NOT earning mone like they did in the 90's, don't fool yourself. Activist studies have nothing to do with truth. "The basic principals for economics would be restored. Anything that exists in an infinite numbers, with a neglectable cost for transport, storage, reproduction and such, should have a price that is almost nil etc.," It costs what people are willing to pay for it, unless you are a hardcore marxist and the state enforces price controls. Just because you are not willing to pay for it doesnt mean you can have it.

D.AN
D.AN

I take it back: 'Sam I Am' is nowhere close to being as annoying as you are.

D.AN
D.AN

"Laws exist to protect minorities from mob rule as much as anyhting else. Those millions don’t necessarily get to decide what happens to someone elses property" Different laws cover entirely different matters. Do you still insist that downloading is the same as depriving the creators' rights to the content? It's utter nonsense. "Your average college student might download all the indie albums he wants for free but he wont steal from the grocery store." Another comparison of digital products to physical products? Lame. "Lessig needs to take humself off the high paid lecture circuit so he can be objecitve, unless his libertarian activism has blinded him to the point to where he actually means stupid shit like what he said in this article." You say that he should be objective, but you are a hypocrite for being subjective. The quality of his opinion is far greater than yours, because he 1) gives reasonable criticism, 2) neither attacked anyone nor subjectively ridiculed an opinion, and 3) is a Law professor who is more familiar with the law than you are. You already tried attacking experts once and failed, so why attempt that again? "“* Everybody with an Internet connection would have legal access to an ever increasing part of the culture produced in the entire world.” You basically do, ..." Not even close, idiot. "... except where piracy is so rampant that it’s not profitable to do business there." Do you even have a spec of proof of that? "Oh, it does actually cost money. If there’s no money to buy music, there’s no money for internet." More evidence that you are malgre: the guy who always thinks about money. "Since when is ‘access to culture’ some kind of right? Really? That in the constitution? Anyway, if you want culture, read a fucking BOOK. It aint expensive." A book as an alternative to music? You are really a dumb ass, moron. The writing style and the change to all lower caps in your username is just more evidence that you are malgre. "Hate to break it to you, most of their customers BUY dvd’s at walmart or amazon on impulse. It’s mostly kids that download music, families buy most of the DVD’s. The kids in college get all self-righteous about it." This is all mindless, insincere speculation. It is an affront to all consumers. "Well Lessigs interpretation of the constitution is not the only one, and if you look at it historically, it was a balancing act between different publishers – the ones who wanted to have contracts with writers and monoplies to print something and all the other ones who were used to just printing whatever they wanted from Europe and making a shit ton of money without giving the writers anything. The people and culture didn’t have much to do with it, really." This is malgre's writing alright. Give some citation and maybe someone would bother with this garbage, fool. "Yeah, it’s funny how inflation makes dollar amounts grow. Ticket prices have grown too, as the number of venues has shrunk. Aritsts are NOT earning mone like they did in the 90’s, don’t fool yourself. Activist studies have nothing to do with truth. This is definitely malgre. I remember him saying that the music vs game sales are off because of not considering inflation: wrong. He always compares to the 90's and speculates about the past. Finally, he apparently has an opposition to all studies and always claim them to be created by activists. You are an imbecile. "It costs what people are willing to pay for it, ..." Tell that to any accountant, economist, or financial worker: they will all disagree with you on this. "... unless you are a hardcore marxist and the state enforces price controls. More stupid use of terms; you are definitely malgre. That, or you are just as stupid. "Just because you are not willing to pay for it doesnt mean you can have it." I thought that you just wrote "It costs what people are willing to pay for it". Fail. You are still a hypocritical, ignorant and naive, arrogant dumb ass.

Junkman
Junkman

This maybe a war brought by P2P community to "dis-value" money. If file sharing is not a bad thing, money would not have any value any longer. But IMO, money will forever exists as long as human greed exists. Both sides have greeds. One side is greedier than the other, while the other side doesn't care/know the effects of its doing. Both clashed and blamed on each other - while other third-party bystanders watch them for a moment and walk away thereafter - ignoring both. Some would say money have caused it, but no, I don't think so. They caused it themselves. Unfortunately, there's no solution for this unless you can brainwash millions of people to do your bidding or to make both behave themselves.

D.AN
D.AN

"This maybe a war brought by P2P community to “dis-value” money. If file sharing is not a bad thing, money would not have any value any longer." Epic fail.

rez
rez

Kieran, I'm not meaning to rag on your ass. I admire the honesty with which you express your opinions. I find that refreshing and I can sincerely empathize. Yours are, infact, the pondering sentiments of many up-and-coming young bands. I was scared sh*tless when I first started. Like you, I was staring at an industry wondering about those very same things you are. Fast forward to the present and hindsight. Here's two pennies from someone who's three quarters of the way around the block. Skymonrie's "hypothetical" posting is a valid concept when it comes to building a fan base for any band, whether industry affiliated or independent. When I first started, I peddled my album (7 songs on cassette) non-stop to media outlets, prostituted my band to any venue, literally lived in a Winnebego van with four other people for 2 years cruising Canadian highways and backroads. And, guess what? I discovered folks were re-recording the album with their cassette players and passing it around for free. Pissed? Of course, I was. How dare they! The adacity of them doing that and not paying for it! Then, I realized what had happened - we had caught their ear! What they were doing, copying and distributing, was a good thing for me and I learned an important concept which served me well with four other albums. Establishing a fan base and keeping it happy is of the utmost importance. A) make the music, B) be prepared to promote it, C) let the music be freely available to the fan. Free music is not a misconception. It's your investment to give the fan an incentive to buy and to come and see you/me. Absurd? No. I sell my music once and after it's bought it's theirs to do with as they please. For every copy they distribute, it's one more potential fan I can count on and a PR boost. This is the concept of free music, moreorless. Yes, my music floats around in P2P. It's not a big thing to me. I know why it's there, and I know how to capitalize on it's being there. I make the bulk of my revenue from sales anyway - tickets, merch, ads, etc. Like Skymonrie stated, the majority of music consumers are willing and would much rather pay the artist directly under these conditions. Give them what they want, they'll give you what you need. Call them unethical or thieves, they'll tell you to piss off and ignore you. The cost of making the music? It's expensive, I totally agree IF one wants to get mired down in the customs of the industry. There are other routes, alternatives and viable options. I know what a home studio costs --> next to nothing. I have one and it's totally mobile. I have a 24 input/output soundboard console (the same one we use on the road) plugged into a laptop running Linux which is loaded with open source audio recording/editting/mixing software. (Linux is free, as in free beer, so is all the accompanying software I use to record my music.) I don't see why you should just "keep your fingers crossed" hoping you're gonna make it. If an old skewl guy like me can do it, a youngster like you with all your potential definitely can do much more. Just keep doing the thing you love and keep plugging away. And, yes, keep an open mind! I don't play golf by the way, it's an expensive, useless, hobby.

Kieran
Kieran

Thanks, I really do appreciate the sympathy. Yes to all the above, I believe loads of bands are trying every angle possible. You simply have to cross your fingers that bands at our level will stick at it and find a way to get their heads above the surface. I know I sound out of touch but you tend to hear the professors, the labels, the 'kids' and the media with an opinion. Musicians opinions vary wildly on this subject matter but I'm allowed to be angry about it. As much as a musician is entilted to support p2p and find ways of using it to further their talent. As of yet, Its a simple equation to me. My bands first album is on limewire, we don't see a penny. Simple as that. Cost us about 2 grand of studio time about 5 years ago. Anyone that tells you music is free to make is also under a misconception - do you know what a 'home' studio pro tools set up will cost you? This all sounds a bit careerist, I'm not, I do it cause I love it, no other reason but golf is a cheaper hobby, believe me. Lol

Skymonrie
Skymonrie

I would just like to add even though I don't know you, I love you because of what you do; making music that makes moments magic of every flavour. If there was a way for me to make sure the money I spend on music went straight to you, rather than the recording industry who in this day and age account for nothing in my books, you would have my money. I don't pick music based on magazines, adverts, media or even reviews; it's word of mouth and the random things i find on the net. It is not in my interest to spend £10 on a CD so that an artist can get 30p of it. I want to give the artist £5!

Skymonrie
Skymonrie

Kieran, I'd like to put a question to you in the form of a situation. Hypothetically, lets say the recording industry doesn't exist and we have all the technology and capabilities of today. How would you get people to know your music? :) (A) Send it to a radio station and hope they play it on air for you under their own terms, no guarantee at all (B) Make copies for your friends so that the impression can spread by word of mouth and with those copies, information regarding live gigs (C) Go out with your music to bars, etc. and try to get them interested. (D) Go to a place you KNOW people interested in hearing new music and ideas also go (like a music shop as bland example) and play your heart out so the people love what you do and get to know the music first hand. I'll hazard a guess, most of these things. They all help to build a name for you in different circumstances and circles. I shamefully admit, my hard drive has quite a number of albums on it which weren't paid for and most likely, never would have. BUT, the reason for this is that, I would never have even known about the artist if it hadn't been for P2P. As an example, there is a progressive D&B artist called LTJ Bukem; like fish in the sea. He came to my university town last year and I was so there; to see the artist live that I wouldn't have given two thoughts about before. Music from Japan produced with people from Chicago, Nujabes. Can you honestly say you've heard of them? I had no idea what they were like until i randomly downloaded an album off the net; now, they are my favourite group EVER!

Kieran
Kieran

...and I would like to add, Im not trying to align myself with the labels fear policy at all. I know I sound like some out of touch old guard who despises p2p. I don't, I just feel too often that I'm Reading opinions of people who have never made a record in their life. I will embrace the new music 2.0 whatever it ends up being. Who knows, maybe one day I'll be able to afford that thinline telecaster ;)

dougm
dougm

one day, we'll see all content on 1-mother of all servers. there will be a fee on high speed users akin that will allow then a gig or two a month no questions asked and the copyright holders will get their allocated share of the downloads.

Kieran
Kieran

I appreciate the idea that this brave new world does throw up opportunities for artists that music 1.0 never did and i'm in no way a label bitch. The problem is I have countless musician friends at grass root levels who simply cannot make it anything more than an expensive hobby and I know we're digressing from the central point of the article, but it's all linked. It bugs me that music shoulders the full brunt/ impact without a voice. People are prepared to buy the player, but not the content. Most of us wouldn't consider buying an xbox360 and then downloading all our games for free, we expect to go out and buy them because someones taken time to create them. The publishing Market Is saturated because everyones simply running to the last areas that raise any cash flow. I know I have to be open minded and embrace whatever the virtual world decides is ' the rules'. Just sad that stealing becomes culture becomes which in turn becomes unchallenged legitimisy. Penniless musicians working two jobs to fund the thing they love. That's natural. Some faceless nobody who simply takes that musicians fundemental intellectual property with no consequence or shame. I'm afraid THAT'S lame.

Skymonrie
Skymonrie

some bad typos in my comment :3 believe the lie has - law* why are born peaceful - we*

Skymonrie
Skymonrie

An interesting article to read highlighting some very relevant points without "personally" slamming the industry, using some facts and professional opinions to make their own opinion. I would like to highlight and relate to this day and age that prohibition didn't mean there was zero alcohol; it has many more uses than just drinking, much in the same way P2P does. P2P itself is just a platform for communication between devices stepping away from the traditional Server->Client approach; calling it piracy in itself is not really thinking the whole thing through. The point about "making an ass of the law" is so very true, in no realistic way has it tried to catch up with the times for the PEOPLE, it has been all about the CORPORATIONS because...they have the money but, who gives them the money? :o Where does the law support the ARTIST? In my opinion, I do not believe it has; I believe the lie has been put under pressure to try and make "things" work based on the worst scenario. Just for one day a year, wouldn't it be great if people could say "Yes to peace" rather than "No to war"? Everyone knows what peace is, why are born peaceful but, learn war from others. I guess it all depends what the artists actually want, a quick five minutes in the limelight to get $$$ (see Lady Gaga *wretches*) or in it to follow the setting sun so that tomorrow can catch up with us. Obviously BOTH camps want something for it so they can actually make a living; neither start making music just so the recording Industry can stuff money down their pants though :p

rez
rez

Kieran, I understand your sentiments (and frustration). However, your view, as a musician, borderlines the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) the recording industry has been spreading. I do not doubt you are an excellent musician. But, it's not technology you should fear or the people who use it. It is the outdated business model and the practises of the recording industry that should have you fretting. If the music industry cannot change, refuses to change, they will go under and take you with them. It will not be because of P2P but inspite of it. I'm a second generation professional musician and I've been one since I was 17 (I'm in my early forties now). I have earned a very good living as an independent musician. And all, without any contractual obligation to any recording label, no middle men to divert my revenue, no share holder to contend with, and I have complete and total control of my music catalogue. I own all the rights to the music I've worked so hard to produce. My life's work does not belong to any shareholder or corporation. My operation isn't financed or backed by a multi million dollar enterprise, but it's a business that affords me a comfortabe lifestyle. P2P is a big part of it as well as touring and merchandise. The point I'm trying to impress on you is this: present technology makes the RIAA redundant. Why? Because a musician can do so much more, today, on their own. It's cheaper to record, produce and distribute music in this day and age with the kind of technology we have. The laws you purport that have served the musician for decades hasn't. It is the "lie." That law has served only corporates and shareholders, and in some cases robbed musicians of their music catalogues and earnings. Indeed, the RIAA are so gonna be screwed if they refuse to adapt. Maybe it will be a good thing if they don't. And, I very much doubt if the music is gonna die anytime soon.

aikanae
aikanae

"P2P is not a business but a destruction of one" Not true. They have destroyed advances that could have evolved into faster and better technology by making it illegal or stemming legitimate growth. Even legal sites like Veogh have had a hard time defending their use as legitimate. The fear over copyrights in general have resulted in designing intentionally disabled electronics. That has had a huge negative economic impact. What I've always found curious is when someone buys my paintings - and they sell it later, if it's increased in value - the original artist (me) never gets paid from future sales. "It's an investment" for them. And unlike digital files, I no longer have the original which in my mind is more like "stealing". One of the problems with copyright laws now is that they are applied unfairly to the creators too. A popular band backed by labels and lawyers can use parts of other people's work, yet a small independent band can do the same thing with one of their works and BOOM - their haul into court or their release is delayed for years trying to negotiate rights. The root of the problem is that we have TRADE ORG. making the laws for their own industry. Their primary purpose is to function as an investment for shareholders and they happen to do something musical once in a while. They want to corner the market. The lawsuits against college kids was little more than a publicity stunt and still is. Since when have college kids ever been able to afford a lot of music? They never have, not even LP's and cassettes.

Tim
Tim

I totally agree that the way the labels have acted has slowed technological growth. But No company is yet to find a way to make freely sharing music and films a business. Those that tried were in my mid rightly sued by the labels as they (ie. Napster) were making money from others work - this is why most current P2P software is free or open source (Limewire/Bittorrent/etc). P2P is technology, but so far has not produced a sustainable business model that will reimburse artists - all it has done is show the up how distant major labels and the entertainment industry was from the locality and community the internet produces. Their methods of suing college kids has only done them harm in the long run as well, and I think they are now starting to appreciate that, but it is too late for some. The RIAA has had its budget slashed, and I see that continuing - there is basically no need for it with the current market if the only solution they can come up with is to sue consumers.

Tim
Tim

Whilst I agree that current copyright laws are ineffective at best and almost idiotic at times, I do have some issues with some of this article. There is no way that the "war on p2p" can really be likened to the prohibition in terms of business. Firstly prohibition was a moral law, whilst copyright is commercial. But more than that, prohibition banned a whole profitable industry from acting within the law so they turned underground and made a fortune. P2P is not a business but a destruction of one, where tax revenues will not suddenly increase if it were made legal. As for Lessig's comments, he has been saying for years how badly copyright law is affecting the youth's perception of law in general, and he has a point. The general consensus from music consumers is how ridiculous copyright law is (in the UK on paper even more so than almost anyhwhere else as you can't legally rip your own CDs or have music sync between an ipod and computer), but how far this decision to flout the law goes beyond copyright is yet to be seen. People aren't stealing more, or performing any other similar crime any more now than pre-Napster. Most people just believe the hype and blame it all on the RIAA (which admittedly is a long way from innocent with constant disinformation and unfounded lawsuits). So, intellectual property law does need a massive overhaul (and not in secret as has happened recently), but legalising P2P may very well not be the way to go. As more and more is done digitally, if all music and films become legally freely available, then why not software? That would be the destruction of another multi-billion dollar industry. Why the difference? It is not like you can support a software house by going to a live gig, but by legalising one it may well set a precedent for other industries. And then what about commercial IP? Why shouldn't that all be shared? Anyway, P2P may have grown massively over the past few years, with users able to play downloaded media on any device they want. However, as TVs become more web enabled and mobile broadband becomes more prevalent, then people will begin to want to stream films/tv/movies on demand to their TV or iPhone or other device. If the internet speeds get fast enough, then the content companies can again regain control of the market as the infrastructure needed to stream all this content on demand is pretty hefty. Access to this constant gateway could then again be charged for. Spotify is leading the way with music, but films and TV will follow. Whatever happens to copyright law, people will use what is easiest for them. At the moment, pirating an album or film is almost as easy as buying it from Amazon or iTunes, and is almost instant. Hulu has shown that by providing content legally in a very simple manner can get a massive userbase quickly, but that userbase expands exponentially once Hulu (or Boxee or whatever) is built right in to the new TV by default. It would be very very difficult for piracy to compete on that level of integration.

Kieran
Kieran

Lies. Legitimising file sharing simply because of it suits some 'robin hood screw the record labels' ethic totally misses the point that artists no longer make money for their work. It might be a cultural genie you can no longer put back in the bottle, by the current laws which have served musicians for decades before filesharing is still illegal and it always should be. Sure, the world would prefer to have a free record collection but in that case make all art free. Gimme my cinema ticket for free, give me that degas for nothing. I'm gonna steal newspapers too because lets face it - if it's 'made' by someone I can have it for free. I'm a musician who's sick to death of these poor ass excuses. Honestly, I thought I was left wing until I read a million blogs saying 'fuck the RIAA. Try being a musician in this climate, then go see if you blow your ' p2p is our right' trumpet. The day the music died? Hell yes.

D.AN
D.AN

Your arguments are all fallacious, false, and you completely missed the main point of this article, Kieran. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

D.AN
D.AN

No, I still don't find using the 'ha-has!' appropriate. Anyway, "fallacious and false" *

DrewWilson
DrewWilson

@ Kieran: "Legitimising file sharing simply because of it suits some ‘robin hood screw the record labels’ ethic totally misses the point that artists no longer make money for their work." Artists no longer making any money? Hasn't that been happening for years thanks to major labels totally screwing the artists anyway? "Try being a musician in this climate, then go see if you blow your ‘ p2p is our right’ trumpet." LOL! I'm an artist and I'm for the p2p movement. It's ironic that you comment how this completely misses the point, yet you turn around and miss the point yourself.

mRuss
mRuss

"Artists no longer making any money? Hasn’t that been happening for years thanks to major labels totally screwing the artists anyway?" It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Artists need to get paid for their work. Since the record companies won't do it it's up to us to support our chosen artists directly.

D.AN
D.AN

Nevermind; sorry about that. I guess I was too focused on 'Sam I Am' lol.

D.AN
D.AN

Wait, I may have misread your post. My bad.

D.AN
D.AN

You did not even prove that "it’s wrong now". Do you know why you cannot? It's because the conditions have changed entirely since the past. "Artists need to get paid for their work. Since the record companies won’t do it...." You have just contradicted yourself. Your argument is worthless.

soulxtc
soulxtc

an opinion = "lies?" Strange. Hes not saying artists shouldnt be compensated only that the current system is broken in the sense that millions of teens have become criminals with no effort to resolve the situation. and that lawsuits havent done anything to benefit record labels or artists. An opinion is never a lie. Lame.

ms
ms

@sudilav "P2P was made by microsoft." Um no. Well if you mean in the case of only specifically the 'Avalanche' project, then you're right. But if you mean they invented p2p, Nope.

sudilav
sudilav

P2P was made by microsoft. microsoft reli shot themselves in the foot there didn't they? The laws are ridiculous, they want to make copyright laws international even though those laws have no focus on digital technology. In UK they wanted to give ISP permission to track our data packets. This is not a world I want to live in if the data protection act is so foolishly ignored just to preserve a few artists cash flow.

Mannifresh
Mannifresh

if only congress had people that understood these new intertubes that Al Gore created......

1cooldude
1cooldude

great article jared. To make sensible changes to the copyright laws requires a lot more sound judgment and work than a legal action against some poor kid in Idaho and I'm guessing that will continue for a while until a" smarter "group of people take control of the copyright groups and accept the reality of the situation.

Television Spy
Television Spy

They're simply making people go underground to get content they would otherwise pay for.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Exactly.....or in manycases teens, especially in the current ecomic climate, are acquring bits of "culture" they otherwise couldnt afford.







VyprVPN Personal VPN lets you browse securely