www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Friday, October 05, 2007
From 99 cents to 9,250 dollars
And now to a completely different type of pirates.
I recently installed iTunes on my computer. I'm not much of a music person, but it turned out that the broadband internet access package I've subscribed to includes 10 free iTunes songs per month. iTunes obviously hopes that I want more than that, and then pay 99 cents per song to them. I'm not sure I'll do so, but 99 cents per song is something I'd consider reasonable pricing. Because today's news is that you can end up paying $9,250 per song. That is how much Jammie Thomas from Duluth, Minn., now has to pay for each of the 24 songs she (or her children) was sharing through Kazaa, a music file-sharing peer-to-peer program. Commenters observed that Mrs. Thomas is unlikely to be able to pay, and that even if she did, it wouldn't even cover the legal costs of the music industry. Nevertheless the decision is considered to be a key victory in the battle of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against music piracy.
The case shows well the principal difficulties of music piracy. Pushing a single mother into bankruptcy because one of her children had Kazaa running on the family computer is not going win the RIAA many new friends. It is unlikely that Jammie Thomas really caused $222,000 in damages to the music industry. The problem is that there are millions of Jamie Thomases, each causing a tiny bit of damage to the music industry. And there is no way to catch them all, and determine exactly how much damage each of them did. So the RIAA goes after a few cases, preferably against people who are unlikely to be able to afford the same quality of lawyers as the RIAA, and establishes some harsh precedents in the hope of scaring the millions of small pirates away.
I know that on the internet this is a minority opinion, but I am opposed to piracy (or "file-sharing" as it is euphemistically called) of music, videos, or software. Being a gamer I've seen game companies make good games and then go bankrupt, because while many people played the game, few people were paying for it. And I hold the pirates partially responsible for all those copy-protection measures like Starforce, need to insert CD when playing, Steam activation, and all other means that end up hurting legal consumers more than pirates. That doesn't excuse the companies that introduced those bad copy-protection measures or who sue people into ruin, but the people who stole those companies' intellectual property are also to blame.
There are no innocents in this battle. The pirates claim that file-sharing is a victim-less crime is as false as the industries claim that each copy constitutes a damage to them equal to the full retail price of the item. Most people who grab a copy of something from the internet wouldn't have paid for it otherwise. But some would have. The pirates hurt the companies, which then spreads the hurt to their legit customers. If there was no piracy, music, videos, and games would be cheaper, and there would be no annoying copy-protection measures. Like in most wars, it is the bystanders who get hurt most.
- posted by Tobold @ 1:46 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
Ratshag said...
A poor kid who's burning a copy of his favorite hip hop artist is not remotely similar to the well off middle age gamer who's pirating the latest first person shooter.
The fuck universe you living in, anonymous? By that argument, teenagers should be allowed to steal anything as long as they want it and can't afford it - music, games, clothing, my car ...
Oh, of course - absolutely. First Timmy's going to pirate Britney's latest album, and that'll be the tipping point that pushes him into a life a violent crime )
Don't be absurd. Teenagers are and have been pirating music for years and it hasn't exactly turned them into blood crazed criminals.
I'll save my anger for Darfur, Global Warming, and Iraq - but apparently you have plenty of outrage to spare, so why don't you be angry over music pirating for the both of us, because I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
You have money to burn. Many people don't. I think it comes down to the media itself. I feel worse about game piracy than music piracy. In fact, I think music piracy only hurts the record companies, which doesn't bother me in the least. Look at Radiohead. They've got it figured out, I think.
Game piracy is different. It's what killed the Amiga.
Here's how I would rank it from worst to least.
books
games
movies
music
porn )
BTW, has everyone heard of deezer?
Game piracy is different. It's what killed the Amiga.
Here's how I would rank it from worst to least.
books
games
movies
music
porn )
BTW, has everyone heard of deezer?
# posted by 
: 5/10/07 15:19
: 5/10/07 15:19
Well some tend to profit from Piracy. Take the Playstation II for example, IMHO its success came from the fact that it used CDs (soooo easy to copy) and not cartridges (much more difficult to copy at home lol).
So the Playstation II became the console leader, as the children knew that they could easily copy games from their friends, making it more and more popular, so having more and more titles coming out for it .... other console makers were left standing in the dust.
So Sony can say thanks, they won that battles thanks to the pirates. The console was no better (even probably not as good) than the others available at the time.
So the Playstation II became the console leader, as the children knew that they could easily copy games from their friends, making it more and more popular, so having more and more titles coming out for it .... other console makers were left standing in the dust.
So Sony can say thanks, they won that battles thanks to the pirates. The console was no better (even probably not as good) than the others available at the time.
# posted by : 5/10/07 15:34
: 5/10/07 15:34
Pushing a single mother into bankruptcy over file-sharing/piracy for the actions of either her or children is the most abhorrent thing I can think off. If the record label in question had any stones they'd go after kazaaa.
File-sharing or File leasing (as itunes does) is here to stay, once you create the technology you can't stop people for using it. These record labels need to learn how to adapt. Stop wasting time and money suing Jane Shmoe and her kids and invest more time and energy figuring out how to deliver the music your customers want.
File-sharing or File leasing (as itunes does) is here to stay, once you create the technology you can't stop people for using it. These record labels need to learn how to adapt. Stop wasting time and money suing Jane Shmoe and her kids and invest more time and energy figuring out how to deliver the music your customers want.
# posted by : 5/10/07 15:52
: 5/10/07 15:52
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15745
On a side note, great news - if they can get funding, that is.
On a side note, great news - if they can get funding, that is.
# posted by : 5/10/07 15:54
: 5/10/07 15:54
My mistake, they're an appendage of NCsoft, so funding won't be an issue.
# posted by : 5/10/07 17:34
: 5/10/07 17:34
To me the core issue is simple enough . Unauthorised downloading of copyrighted materials is wrong. It is stealing. Just because we want something does not give us a right to have it. This principle stands regardless of the whether or not the RIAA are evil bastards, regardless of whether or not I can afford to pay the price being asked for a legal copy, regardless of whether or not piracy has unexpected positive results and regardless even of whether or not at some bright day in the future we will all change our views and make everything free to everybody.
I work in an institution with a lot of younger people. None of them feel this way. During a recent in house survey one question asked was "Estimate the number of songs in your music collection". The median answer was: 5000 to 10000 songs.
God I feel old.
I work in an institution with a lot of younger people. None of them feel this way. During a recent in house survey one question asked was "Estimate the number of songs in your music collection". The median answer was: 5000 to 10000 songs.
God I feel old.
You have money to burn. Many people don't.
What has that to with anything? Are you saying that if I can afford something, I should buy it, but if not then it's okay to copy / steal it?
I wouldn't be against solutions where music is legally free to download and music companies make their money from concerts and merchandise. But as long as some people buy music CDs and others just pirate them, the people who are buying end up financing the music for the people who steal it. Sorry, but if I wanted to live in communism, I'd move to China.
What has that to with anything? Are you saying that if I can afford something, I should buy it, but if not then it's okay to copy / steal it?
I wouldn't be against solutions where music is legally free to download and music companies make their money from concerts and merchandise. But as long as some people buy music CDs and others just pirate them, the people who are buying end up financing the music for the people who steal it. Sorry, but if I wanted to live in communism, I'd move to China.
I'd like to note that the RIAA's lawsuits and settlements don't go to the artists whose work is involved- that money goes straight to the RIAA companies. When you buy music from RIAA companies, the musicians get no more than a handful of pennies on every $20 CD you buy- the rest goes to the company. Where musicians make their money is merchandising and concert performances- the two things which can't be copied. When you download songs, you're not hurting the artists- you're hurting the parasites who bleed for the artists for money. An essay by legendary producer Steve Albini on the topic of how the RIAA companies fuck the artists out of all their money can be found at http://negativland.com/albini.html
As an artist myself, I'd have to say that the issue of piracy is a complex one. On the one hand, there's some evidence (not tremendously strong evidence, it must be said) that piracy hurts artists. On the other hand, there's also the issue of access to the arts - that people can access art regardless of their means is a Good Thing.
What isn't particularly grey is the issue of bankrupting someone and potentially ruining a decade or so of their life for a comparatively minor infraction. I'd be ashamed to be associated with any organisation involved in such activities.
What isn't particularly grey is the issue of bankrupting someone and potentially ruining a decade or so of their life for a comparatively minor infraction. I'd be ashamed to be associated with any organisation involved in such activities.
If the RIAA and the companies it represented spent more money and resources into finding and developing new bands that had potential and keeping development off bands that will only make one hit that sounds similar to another band that already exists these companies would make more money. Instead they make you buy crap music for 15-19 USD and expect you to come back for more. But instead of fixing the real problem they go after people who download music illegally and come out with a loss in legal fees and appearing to be the bad guy. This may be a law suit over an issue but I'm not convinced the record labels are thinking through the reprecussions of their actions.
As you said, the RIAA goes after people based on whether they can fight back or not.
Unfortunately, the fact is that the music industry is responsible for the marketing-over-quality crap we have today as well as the $.07 per song the artist actually gets from iTunes (to pay for all that marketing, and their legal costs, etc).
I tend to support piracy, not because I think it's right, but because the entire music industry needs to collapse and rebuild, hopefully in a format more friendly to artists. In fact, that's the main reason many artists support the illegal downloading of their own songs.
Unfortunately, the fact is that the music industry is responsible for the marketing-over-quality crap we have today as well as the $.07 per song the artist actually gets from iTunes (to pay for all that marketing, and their legal costs, etc).
I tend to support piracy, not because I think it's right, but because the entire music industry needs to collapse and rebuild, hopefully in a format more friendly to artists. In fact, that's the main reason many artists support the illegal downloading of their own songs.
Its one thing if people were sharing intellectual property, but this is regarding down bit versions of these songs. An analogy I can give would be going to a public library for some text for a public speech for a class. Say you decide to copy/blowup a picture from a book for a presentation.
Do the original photographer/ publisher of that photo own the rights? (yes, obviously). Since you have manipulated and perhaps even altered/added on to the photo it would then become yours? (popular culture art, text has many cross-media reach). Do you get fined $9250 because you didn’t actually ask for permission to share the medium (which came from intellectual property)? Would the whole class be "pirates" for being involved?
Some of these questions are not so different in the music and entertainment world. I am a firm believer that the USA has too much litigation and grasp on open sourcing ideas. How do you innovate when company ABC has 3 patents, which financially stop your product from reaching customers? (Sure you can pay their fees, just as you can even punch your self in the face and watch the blood drip)
These restrictions that confine the way ideas flow are eventually going to show why America won’t be the best place to sell your product, your art, your music, but rather be the loser in a race with an open source space like the internet where you have less of the American patent-grasping bull222t. In an age where disc burners, cloning software are common and cheap, what else could the music industry expect? IMO this would be like throwing candy at a parade, then suing everyone who didn’t pay for the candy.
Do the original photographer/ publisher of that photo own the rights? (yes, obviously). Since you have manipulated and perhaps even altered/added on to the photo it would then become yours? (popular culture art, text has many cross-media reach). Do you get fined $9250 because you didn’t actually ask for permission to share the medium (which came from intellectual property)? Would the whole class be "pirates" for being involved?
Some of these questions are not so different in the music and entertainment world. I am a firm believer that the USA has too much litigation and grasp on open sourcing ideas. How do you innovate when company ABC has 3 patents, which financially stop your product from reaching customers? (Sure you can pay their fees, just as you can even punch your self in the face and watch the blood drip)
These restrictions that confine the way ideas flow are eventually going to show why America won’t be the best place to sell your product, your art, your music, but rather be the loser in a race with an open source space like the internet where you have less of the American patent-grasping bull222t. In an age where disc burners, cloning software are common and cheap, what else could the music industry expect? IMO this would be like throwing candy at a parade, then suing everyone who didn’t pay for the candy.
Tobold said...
You have money to burn. Many people don't.
What has that to with anything? Are you saying that if I can afford something, I should buy it, but if not then it's okay to copy / steal it?
From your standpoint, it has nothing to do with it. From a poor teenager's standpoint, it has everything to do with it.
I'm incapable of seeing this issue in black and white terms, as you seem to. As I already posted, it depends on the person who's pirating and what they're pirating.
A poor kid who's burning a copy of his favorite hip hop artist is not remotely similar to the well off middle age gamer who's pirating the latest first person shooter.
I'm not endorsing music piracy, but I'll never put it in the same category as game piracy.
You have money to burn. Many people don't.
What has that to with anything? Are you saying that if I can afford something, I should buy it, but if not then it's okay to copy / steal it?
From your standpoint, it has nothing to do with it. From a poor teenager's standpoint, it has everything to do with it.
I'm incapable of seeing this issue in black and white terms, as you seem to. As I already posted, it depends on the person who's pirating and what they're pirating.
A poor kid who's burning a copy of his favorite hip hop artist is not remotely similar to the well off middle age gamer who's pirating the latest first person shooter.
I'm not endorsing music piracy, but I'll never put it in the same category as game piracy.
# posted by : 6/10/07 02:30
: 6/10/07 02:30
Everyone involved in music piracy likes to think they're not responsible. People downloading music think that they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway, so it's not stealing. The music companies are fighting a financial enemy in a new medium, and finding it impossible to actually fight the problem - thus they are reduced to bankrupting single mothers to dissuade others, a questionable tactic at best.
The problem with this is the Internet. It's simply too vast and sprawling for any person, organisation or totalitarian AI to watch, let alone control. Now I'm not going to argue about the morality of intellectual property laws, but I will say this: it's a bad idea to keep laws on the books that are unenforceable. If a large segment of society is breaking a law, maybe it's time to rethink that law.
And no, banning the Internet is not a solution.
The problem with this is the Internet. It's simply too vast and sprawling for any person, organisation or totalitarian AI to watch, let alone control. Now I'm not going to argue about the morality of intellectual property laws, but I will say this: it's a bad idea to keep laws on the books that are unenforceable. If a large segment of society is breaking a law, maybe it's time to rethink that law.
And no, banning the Internet is not a solution.
A poor kid who's burning a copy of his favorite hip hop artist is not remotely similar to the well off middle age gamer who's pirating the latest first person shooter.
The fuck universe you living in, anonymous? By that argument, teenagers should be allowed to steal anything as long as they want it and can't afford it - music, games, clothing, my car ...
The fuck universe you living in, anonymous? By that argument, teenagers should be allowed to steal anything as long as they want it and can't afford it - music, games, clothing, my car ...
I think there should be rules about re-selling the music you download. However, sampling what you listen to before you buy it seems like a good idea, from both a buyer and seller perspective. Now there is high quality audio/video equipment, what you would pay for is the highest quality music available.
Ratshag said...
A poor kid who's burning a copy of his favorite hip hop artist is not remotely similar to the well off middle age gamer who's pirating the latest first person shooter.
The fuck universe you living in, anonymous? By that argument, teenagers should be allowed to steal anything as long as they want it and can't afford it - music, games, clothing, my car ...
Oh, of course - absolutely. First Timmy's going to pirate Britney's latest album, and that'll be the tipping point that pushes him into a life a violent crime )
Don't be absurd. Teenagers are and have been pirating music for years and it hasn't exactly turned them into blood crazed criminals.
I'll save my anger for Darfur, Global Warming, and Iraq - but apparently you have plenty of outrage to spare, so why don't you be angry over music pirating for the both of us, because I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.
# posted by : 6/10/07 19:26
: 6/10/07 19:26
I have to agree with what Zach said earlier. The entire music industry needs to be torn down and rebuilt. They formed a monopolisitc lobbying group and have forced major rewrites of how copyright law effects music. They also had a major hand in pushing the DMCA and NET through congress.
Copyright Changes:
Basically music copyrights after 1980 last a lot longer and have less fair use. Technically, making a recording of a broadcast radio song is now illegal just not very enforcable.
NET:
Traded and pirated music without financial gain is now an federal crime. Before 1997 as long as you weren't charging money for it, you weren't breaking the law. Music industry pushed this just so they could go after kids who were freely trading through the mail and the internet.
DMCA:
OMG one of the worst designed bills ever. Orginially it was specifically designed to knock out central pirate servers like the original Napster. It wasn't too long after being signed that p2p utility came around nullifies a good portion of the bill.
Nowadays I believe the recording industry basically uses provisions in the bill to use the federal government to gain names from ISPs without a lot of hassle. Then they can use this information to fuel their lawsuits for NET violations.
Copyright Changes:
Basically music copyrights after 1980 last a lot longer and have less fair use. Technically, making a recording of a broadcast radio song is now illegal just not very enforcable.
NET:
Traded and pirated music without financial gain is now an federal crime. Before 1997 as long as you weren't charging money for it, you weren't breaking the law. Music industry pushed this just so they could go after kids who were freely trading through the mail and the internet.
DMCA:
OMG one of the worst designed bills ever. Orginially it was specifically designed to knock out central pirate servers like the original Napster. It wasn't too long after being signed that p2p utility came around nullifies a good portion of the bill.
Nowadays I believe the recording industry basically uses provisions in the bill to use the federal government to gain names from ISPs without a lot of hassle. Then they can use this information to fuel their lawsuits for NET violations.
Anything that accepts usernames/login/password typically has a EULA stating your privacy situation.
If, in this case, they obtained this womans information through anything besides her consent, they are liable for for damages caused by breaking the eula and privacy agreements of those mediums (napster/kazaa/etc).
TBH, I hope this case sets precident to abolish some of the heinously idiotic copyright/patent laws that exist.
As for the future of filesharing, take a look at microsoft zune, they have recently loosened some restrictions so that songs can be shared an infinate number of times between zune users (whereas it used to be limited) however the 3 day time limit still exists if you dont purchase the song (fair enough, imo).
Post a Comment
If, in this case, they obtained this womans information through anything besides her consent, they are liable for for damages caused by breaking the eula and privacy agreements of those mediums (napster/kazaa/etc).
TBH, I hope this case sets precident to abolish some of the heinously idiotic copyright/patent laws that exist.
As for the future of filesharing, take a look at microsoft zune, they have recently loosened some restrictions so that songs can be shared an infinate number of times between zune users (whereas it used to be limited) however the 3 day time limit still exists if you dont purchase the song (fair enough, imo).
<< Home
