Should P2P Be Stopped?

[Rule]

I think it gives alot of people opportunity to listen to music, download software, videos etc and share as well, with the massive amount of products out there, I think its a good thing. IE I may download a cd, and if it turns out I really like it, I most likely will buy that cd. How else can one listen to alot of music, when music stores have a 3cd limit =)

[Dire Wolf]

P2P will never die.

 

The RIAA is full of itself. All the cases they tried to sue the colleges to have them release the names of those who share files FAILED MISERABLY!

 

File Sharing 4 Life!

 

 

 

 

-DW

[»1587200]

I didn't bother reading everyone's posts, mainly because Im tired. So Im just going to leave my two cents on the subject.

 

P2P is going to be around no matter what these huge companies with unlimited bank accounts do. Shut down kazza, napster, whatever. It doesn't matter. If you think about it, email could be concidered P2P. Does this mean the RIAA is going to shutdown ever email system on the planet? I think the RIAA needs to read my reply on the legalizing pot thread in this forum.

 

The one thing P2P leads to that has the RIAA up in a bind is that it leads to gloified tape dubbing. Most of you probably won't remember this, but back when they found out how to copy tapes, and record music off the radio onto a tape, a bunch of higher up company exec's got all bent out of shape too. Thats exactly what this is. Glorified tape dubbing.

 

These whinning -*BAD WORD*- millionare bands need to stfu. I don't have $20 to spend on your -*BAD WORD*- cd and make you even more rich. Its like; why bother paying $7 for a beer @ a bar, when I can go get 24 of them for $15. It costs what? 15 cents to make a cd. If even that... and they want to mark it up almost 200%. Eat me. I'll buy the cd and make the -*BAD WORD*- thing for 10 times less than that. These uppidy millionares really peeve me. "It vexes me. Im terribly vexed."

[Dire Wolf]

elegantly put

 

 

gj

[orb360]

Hmmm.... No it's not right, but the RIAA has become more than it needs to be and needs to be put back in it's place... They get over half of the money you pay for each CD, I would rather pay the artist all 15-20$

[Wax]

I agree.

[Evil Jin]

so more people thing p2p is good now close

[Paxil]

I remember when I never used any of this P2P stuff, napster, whatever else. I did start when i noticed alot of this stuff I wanted (Music, programs, etc...) started to become to high priced. I can also remember when I bought CD's for like 10-12 dollars, now its close to 20, sometimes more. I still refuse to pay hundreds of dollars for programs, its way to much and i have enough -*BAD WORD*- to pay for now. I will never stop using file sharing systems, I guess I consider this stuff revenge

[madhaha]

As far as the poll goes, P2P is a good thing. For example, a phonecall is peer to peer. One to one communications, neither inherently dangerous or stoppable. Banning the technology? Absurd.

 

P2P FILESHARING OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS is an entirely seperate issue. Songs and videos have long been copied on tape. This was deemed exceptable. Bootlegging (recording stuff from concerts or at the cinema) has been deemed unstoppable and in the case of live concerts encouraged. The actual theft of music/video/books/software is not what is bothering the industry.

 

No. What they are worried about is the fact that amateurs can reproduce and distribute copyrighted materials much faster than they have ever dreamed of. They cannot monopolise it or tax it. They cannot out compete it, buy it out or persuade the public that their music, despite being digitally identical, should STILL costs 10 times more than it used to on LPs (great scam they've got going). If artists start taking advantage of IT to distribute their music they can cut out the middle man, the record label, and take higher profits WHILE offering a better price without problems with international boundaries or taxation.

 

They are fighting to save the album format and they know they can't do it.

 

Meanwhile, IT companies like Apple have began giving people a legitimate way to buy cheap downloadable music while supporting their bands. The record companies are pe!@#$%^&*ioning against it.

 

Napster/P2P just showed the world it could be done.

[Bargeld]

Anyone have a clue as to how many people are needed to make a successful movie or commercial music album? A TON.

 

When you use P2P there are 2 effects:

 

1) The companies who produced these products lose revenue that they need to pay for the costs of creation, distribution, etc.

 

2) The "little people" involed in the ventures receive NO recognition for their work. The key grip and the !@#$%^&*istant to the !@#$%^&*istant toilet scrubber... no one knows their names because you don't get a label/cover/booklet with P2P files.

 

As a result of 1) the costs for these items increase so that the business can try to recoup the loss. Also the wage for these jobs is lowered because the business wants to save money for the next venture. This may not mean a lot to the consumers, but for the people in the industries at hand (One of the largest industries in the US) this has a large impact.

 

In regards to 2) consider it from the standpoint of someone who is involved IN the industry, rather than as a victim OF the industry. You have spent years working to get in the position you are in (exec producer, Starring Actor, Pop Superstar) and you do deserve to make the kind of money that you make because you are (supposed to be) good at what you do. Its straight up theft when someone takes your product without paying for it. Do you think it's acceptable to go to a restaraunt with a friend and order one soda with free refills, then share it? You probably will say "but soda is SO cheap to make, its a rip off to sell it for $1.39 and make us both buy one, espesially if its free refills. Well multiply that same scenario by a few million, is it still acceptable?

 

Also, with regards to VHS tapes, and also applying to mp3 music. The going argument in the past has been that end users of these products are receiving a lower quality product than an original (video/sound/lack of packaging.) As we move into a digital age, the ability to perfectly mimic these products grows, and the shared products are definiately becoming direct alternatives to purchased products. This is why the companies have their panties in a bunch. In the old day you could obviously tell the difference between an illegal copy of a movie, music, or software (warez that often had bugs and no official support) and the legal versions that were purchased. Nowadays people rip and copy DVD's and CD images of software and music and the majority of the product is exactly the same as the original. Hence copyright infringement.

 

What it comes down to is this: if you owned something, and someone took it and used it without your permission, you would be pissed and want to prevent it from occurring again. Thats what's happening in these industries now.

[Bargeld]

imagine if every street corner had a cop on it, or a video camera to record the passersby. (This exosts in downtown London)

 

Imagine if every packet sent throught every router was analyzed for its contents. Access to the internet is a priviledge, not a right...very similar to access to your favorite zone. Your ISP and all ISPs could do these things and if you wanted ANY internet access at all, you would be subject to their terms (read: screw your privacy rights.)

 

Consider subspace, if it went pay2play, a ton of people would still support the most recent free version of Continuum and host servers for it.

 

Consider Operating systems, if Winxp2k5 (i made this up) forced registration and supported software installation, use, and management through Microsoft so that you weren't able to run specific applications on that OS... everyone would revert to the most recent, most stable, version of an OS (win2k or 98se or ME or an older XP.)

 

All these things can be detected easily for the majprity of users. You are left with a small percentage of the population who have the knowledge to psych out the most basic detection methods. The target of these industry leaders is not the "smart computer user," but is the majority of dumb users out there. They will be able to enforce new methods constantly because they can prevent a large majority of the theft with a minimum amount of effort. The proof for this lies in the success and usage of AOL and MSN... most people don't have the same mentality and ability as an intermediately(or higher) knowledgable computer user. The only reason Kazaa and napster work is bacause any idiot can use them. If you add the slightest bit of problems with the software or the users ability to transfer files, then you will knock out a ton of theft.

[Silk]

I think you just owned everyone Bargeld

[madhaha]

Arguments against those theories:

 

1) Are you taking something if the person that is deprived hasn't lost any property? The song artists produced a song and at the end of the day they still have their song. They're just unwilling to sell it in a way that makes sense in the modern world. Given the option, people are happy to pay the artists a reasonable amount of money and notice that music sales INCREASED during Napster's lifespan and dropped when it died. What does that suggest? That people pay for music when they find something they like and that p2p can be a great marketting tool just like radio.

 

2) "The companies who produced these products lose revenue that they need to pay for the costs of creation, distribution, etc. " These same companies would MAKE money if they created things that people are willing to pay for and delivered it in a form that people want. The industry in general is anti-mp3 for any usage and are unwilling to adopt it even though people want their music in that format. Its nothing to do with cost or sound quality (they could deliver Better quality sound with the same storage). The "recognition to the little people" spiel is rubbish! If people cared, the information is on the web, but how many people ACTUALLY read the tiny credits on the cover of their CD's? Whenever you hear a song performed on the radio you don't get them reading out the full credits of each and every !@#$%^&*le do you? There is no reason why coverart can't exist in the digital (note the windows media player support) and there is now a demand for webartists.

 

Here we have a case where copyright is not used to protect intellectual property as it was intended, but instead used by the industry to crush compe!@#$%^&*ion.

[Bargeld]

1) Are you taking something if the person that is deprived hasn't lost any property? The song artists produced a song and at the end of the day they still have their song. They're just unwilling to sell it in a way that makes sense in the modern world.

Have you forgotten the essence of the idea of licensing? The way the modern world accepts TV, Radio, Software, Music, and Movies is through licensing. When you buy a CD or DVD, you don't by the un-exclusive rights to that media. You simple purchase the private rights for your own personal use. Distributing that media to others goes beyond that boundary.

 

2) "The companies who produced these products lose revenue that they need to pay for the costs of creation, distribution, etc. " These same companies would MAKE money if they created things that people are willing to pay for and delivered it in a form that people want. The industry in general is anti-mp3 for any usage and are unwilling to adopt it even though people want their music in that format. Its nothing to do with cost or sound quality (they could deliver Better quality sound with the same storage). The "recognition to the little people" spiel is rubbish! If people cared, the information is on the web, but how many people ACTUALLY read the tiny credits on the cover of their CD's? Whenever you hear a song performed on the radio you don't get them reading out the full credits of each and every !@#$%^&*le do you? There is no reason why coverart can't exist in the digital (note the windows media player support) and there is now a demand for webartists.

 

Here we have a case where copyright is not used to protect intellectual property as it was intended, but instead used by the industry to crush compe!@#$%^&*ion.

 

People (americans especially) are greedy and would rather steal and rationalize their actions then to go out of their way and buy the products. P2P of copyrighted materials is basically "looting" like what occurs during a riot. People think to themselves that there is no way they will get caught, so that makes it ok to do. Morally and ethically, that is still wrong.

As far as the credits on the radio go, you are right they dont list all that info. But the radio stations pay MUCH more than an individual would pay for the rights to play that media on the air. The record companies, artists and creators get their $$ for it AND get the promotion from it. In the case of napster and kazaa, they might get the promo, but they dont get paid by the distributors (the kazaa users who allow people to download from them.)

 

Sound quality... I already stated that the products are considered direct replacements, my sound quality argument referred to the past forms of media, such as VHS and c!@#$%^&*ette tapes. There is another issue here too: when an artist and a production unit create media, they retain the right to limit/enforce/control the sound quality aspects. Tons of money is spent on mastering levels and mixing these albums so they sound the way an artists wants, then they sell or license that product. Everyone here has downloaded an incomplete, low quality, skipping, or otherwise imperfect mp3 before, or a low quality stereo DVD rip in mpg format. The artists are being represented by these works, yet have no control over them when distributed via P2P. Many music afficianados pay close attention to these details, which can be completely lost through conversion to mp3 and through P2P transfers and movies are edited for good video and multi-channel sound quality. You may not find these issues important, but what you forget is that it is still the artists and production company's RIGHT to control these things. Thats why copyright laws were created, and that is what capitalism is about: To make money on an ethical and legal playing field. If you don't like the way they license and sell their products, TOO BAD. Just because big brother isn't watching doesn't mean its ok to loot the products.

 

Look at what happened to napster, morpheus, audiogalaxy etc. They still allow users to use P2P, but the distribution is controlled, the company and the members pay for their media usage. They all had to "strike a deal" with the owners of the media in order to do this. And if you notice, the products they provide are superior to what you can currently get on kazaa (low quality, incorrect !@#$%^&*ling, virii, spy ware, etc.) You get what you pay for (or don't pay for,) but remember that the artists are being represented by these inherant problems in distribution, and that pisses them off. How would you feel if you wrote a book, and then it went on the shelves of nationwide bookstores only to find, a month later, that thousands upon thousands of people got ill or died because some other distribution center got ahold of your product, replicated it then sold it, but laced all the pages with arsenic or some other dangerous chemical. What if all the pages were smeared and many were illegible or the last 2 chapters of the book were not included in the product?

 

You are right about the packaging of music, cover art, credits etc through windows media player. If you read one of my previous posts, you will see that I mentioned that these industries are working with Microsoft and Real etc to enforced licensing and copyrights. But no smart business would spend MORE money on enhanced media development knowing that it's going to get stolen. That's like the owner of a store, that is being constantly looted, buying more products to replace his stolen goods...just so that they can be stolen again, but in this case we are suggestion he buy ENHANCED and more expensive products to get stolen. Instead the owner will wait till the store is back under wraps and then start carrying those products. The perfect example of this is enhanced DVD's and Console games with director's cuts and interactive content such as picture galleries etc. These forms are simply too difficult for the majority of end users to replicate and use, and so the content is developed.

 

Final note: ownership IS a monopoly. There can only be one sole owner of the rights to software, music, movies, etc. The rights to distribution where your problem lies. The current forms of distribution are not a monopoly, there are always another distribution center who will package CDs, Software, and DVDs for a company for a cheaper cost than a compe!@#$%^&*or, there will always be a radio statio who will pay more for the latest breaking pop hit, etc.

[Silk]

I believe a radio station has to pay every time they play a song, heard some DJ saying something about a song they played costing 50cents every time, and when you consider every radio station in the USA and every time they play the song (some several times a day) it all adds up.

[madhaha]

Please note that the above are valid arguments as opposed to my personal beliefs.

 

Philosophically speaking, I don't believe that information can be owned. Selling it is at your own risk and distribution is what it does best. All this prattle about P2P is really irrelevant. If people can steal without being caught then they will. The fact that in some ways the companies benifit is a nice sideeffect.

 

The memes will spread.

 

Silk: What does that have to do with anything?

[Silk]

2) "The companies who produced these products lose revenue that they need to pay for the costs of creation, distribution, etc. " These same companies would MAKE money if they created things that people are willing to pay for and delivered it in a form that people want.

 

Also, theya re making things people are willing to pay for, but with P2P it isnt necessary to if someone just wants one song and dont want to buy a single track.

[Bargeld]

The reason that p2p is here is for people to allow people to listen to songs for free so that those of us who can’t pay for it can enjoy what others are enjoying.

 

You need to read the previous messages. It's really a shame that you have this belief, because it is totally skewed. The worst part is that you represent the majority of P2P users.

If you wish to have the things you want, like the ability to "listen to music for free so that [you].... can enjoy what others are enjoying", listen to the radio. That's EXACTLY the purpose of it. Or get a job (or wait till you are an adult and are able to buy the things you want.) As it stands, you are growing up with the mentality of a thief with very little knowledge of the world around you and an overly self-centered view of things. Seriously, you need to take a look at the Soda example I gave in a previous message and expand your mind.

 

The purpose of discussion (as the forum !@#$%^&*le "political discussion" suggests,) is to share your viewpoints with others and at the same time, opening yourself to the opinions of others with the expectation that you will be given new information or a new way of approaching the topic at hand. The idea is to LEARN something. A lot of good points have been made by a number of people on this issue, and we are far beyond the "i am poor so i need to steal my music" ideology.

[Bargeld]

bah i'm just wasting my time and yours (everyone who reads this.) Sorry for stealing these few minutes of your life. Thanks, Man-Guy, for reminding me to whom I was preaching as well as the payoff at the end of the road.

[MonteZuma]

I'm an ordinary wage earner with an average income and, I just don’t got the time to get a better education or a better job, so how am I supposed to buy a beach house and a yacht? I really enjoy the beach and yachting, but the thing is I don’t have the money to buy them. The reason that theft and embezzlement is here is so that those of us who can’t pay for things can enjoy what others are enjoying. Another thing is, yachts are too expensive, most of the time you get a small boat that kinda sucks, theft and embezzlement eliminates that by allowing you to buy what you want. I understand that the people and businesses are losing money this way but if they were willing to first lower prices, and allow people to buy houses and yachts while someone else pays, people won't thieve as much. Finally, this is closely related to a issue where people buy lawn mowers and video recorders from bars, I think this is ok as well because it’s the people's fault for not putting big enough locks on their garages, sheds and homes.

 

C'mon. Get real.

 

Having said that....P2P is ELITE. FREE STUFF!!!!!!

[fresca]

P2P ruins the economy;p

 

But I really would hate if they banned it, lol im a loser and my mom wouldn't let me buy the CDs I buy, and they are expensive too, thus, I downlaod off KLite.

[madhaha]

Its not the same as stealing a yacht, because the owner doesn't lose the yacht. Its like someone cloned his yacht for free and now everyone in the neighbourhood can have yachts.

 

Out there are pirate booksharing groups. They distribute via a variety of methods including p2p. The majority of its users are students looking for hard to find, out of print or limited use texts. Its a free library that helps people learn. People use it even when they have the book legally because its easier to quote from. Should p2p as a technology be killed off because these people are "stealing" hundreds upon thousands of pounds of copyrighted material even though they still obsessively collect their favourite authors, go to book signings and now have a wider range of reading?

 

Should people be monitored on an individual basis and all big file transfers be held under suspicion just in case someone wants to download a song they heard off the radio or an advert on TV?

 

I don't think so. What they should be concentrating on is working for a way in which fans can pay artists back, perhaps access global library of all major record labels in exchange for a yearly sum of money. It'd make marketting much easier and the charts much more accurate.

[Mr Ekted]

Let's talk about this from a network point of view. When all is said and done, all data/files are send across the internet from one computer to another. We don't really need to qualify the endpoints as client and/or server. From this respect, p2p simply means lack of centralization. From a legal respect, p2p means there's no one place to sue to stop it.

 

Napster was the first major legal win for the music industry, and the first big precedent set towards complete lack of freedom. They had a big database which allowed anyone to find arbitrary content online, but since the intended use of this system was illegal, it could be shutdown. By this same law, why not go after shops that sell bongs and rolling papers? What about stores that sell guns, knifes, crowbars, photocopiers, scanners, CDR drives, etc.

 

Almost every piece of software nowadays has an online component. This means it shares data with another computer in some way. When you send email you are sending data/files to another computer. When you browse, you are actually downloading files. Instant messengers allow file sharing, some even have shared directories. On and on. How long before some -*BAD WORD*- with a hundred billion dollars tries to shutdown all browsers because he wants a hundred billion and one dollars?

 

There are already wheels in motion to add things to hardware/software that would make you vomit. A new version of Intel chips will support encryped machine code. Applications will ship encrypted and will only run on protected hardware and only if you are authorized. If a company wants to prevent you from using a piece of software, they can revoke the key, and it will stop running on your system. Likewise, data files will be encrypted and stuff you buy will only work on your machine and only if they allow it. You will not be able to "rip" stuff from a CD because your sound card will not allow unencrypted digital signals to p!@#$%^&* through. You think this is far fetched? You think "I just won't buy this stuff"? If you own any of the newer SoundBlaster cards, you already have part of this system in your computer.

 

http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/4793

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[madhaha]

I think this is partly why the Chinese begand creating their own hardware... Mistrust of these western hardware monitoring methods. Who knows what sort of -*BAD WORD*- they stick into their little black boxes.

[Silk]

Shops with bongs and other drug stuff do get shut down.