Easily described

Band made funny video to try and stop p2p users of Winny filesharing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny

Quote:
Winny (also known as WinNY) is a Japanese peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing program which claims to be loosely inspired by the design principles behind the Freenet network, which makes user identities untraceable. While Freenet was implemented in Java, Winny was implemented as a Windows C++ application

SOPA isn't a law. >> ^gwiz665:

Under SOPA google would be illegal too. Should we stop using google docs and gmail?
>> ^longde:
That's a risk those users chose to take.
I was shopping around for a online fileshare for a company of mine, and considered megaupload, given the good reviews it had and the deals they offered. I ultimately decided not to use MU, because of my knowledge of their illegal activity.
If I rent a room in a crackhouse or methlab, should I get upset when the cops raid it and confiscate my stuff?
>> ^gwiz665:
A lot of people were using that service for legitimate purposes, what about them? The people that shut it down owe them their data.

Under SOPA google would be illegal too. Should we stop using google docs and gmail?
>> ^longde:

That's a risk those users chose to take.
I was shopping around for a online fileshare for a company of mine, and considered megaupload, given the good reviews it had and the deals they offered. I ultimately decided not to use MU, because of my knowledge of their illegal activity.
If I rent a room in a crackhouse or methlab, should I get upset when the cops raid it and confiscate my stuff?
>> ^gwiz665:
A lot of people were using that service for legitimate purposes, what about them? The people that shut it down owe them their data.

That's a risk those users chose to take.

I was shopping around for a online fileshare for a company of mine, and considered megaupload, given the good reviews it had and the deals they offered. I ultimately decided not to use MU, because of my knowledge of their illegal activity.

If I rent a room in a crackhouse or methlab, should I get upset when the cops raid it and confiscate my stuff?
>> ^gwiz665:

A lot of people were using that service for legitimate purposes, what about them? The people that shut it down owe them their data.

Not from DeadMau5. From DeadMau5's Facebook page:

Deadmau5's facebook account has been hacked by an illegal filesharing site. We have now regained control of this page, however Joel himself still has limited access. Please bare with us while we work with facebook to resolve the problems. Deadmau5 Management

I know, I know...the government is bad. Same song, different day.

I don't really give a rat's ass for the FCC. I don't even care about prioritizing between different types of data. Giving VOIP priority over filesharing traffic is fine and makes perfect sense, one's gap-sensitive and the other isn't. What I want is one simple rule. The -source- of the data packet cannot be used in that prioritization. IOW, all VOIP packets must be treated the same, all video must be treated the same, etc.

Allowing the big network providers to do WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY THREATENED TO DO is just stupid. Allowing them to do so because you're worried about something that -might- happen later is even more so. It's like allowing a mugger to stab you, because you're worried that fighting back or running will allow him to file a claim against your insurance.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.
The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?

^xxovercastxx
I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

Not sure I get where you're coming from.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
So would it be fair to summarise your argument as: "There's no room for an anarchic mini-economy inside a capitalist super-economy"?

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Having just said what I did above... I've always been torn about filesharing in general and people trying to justify doing it.

I do it... but I know it's wrong really.

If I download music or a movie and I enjoy it, how is it right that I not be giving the artist compensation for that work?

Most people who copy stuff will say 'Yeah, but the artist doesn't get much anyway, it's the evil record/movie companies that get most of the money, so fuck them'.

Except that doesn't solve the problem does it? Just because you don't like the corporations, not getting any money to the artist doesn't solve a thing.

Other people say 'music/information should be free man'. Um... ok, but then how do those who make said music or information make a living? Hmmm, if they're not paid for the thing they spend time creating and others do enjoy consuming... how are they supposed to make money?

And if you say 'well, they should tour and make money that way', then get stuffed. I KNOW they CAN make money that way, and do, but there are those who produce music in ways that don't translate to live shows, and then it only works for those that are in the areas where the acts do tour. So you're saying it's ok for those outside those areas to consume the music for free and not give the artist anything just because they live in some area that bands don't tour? Riiight.

Definitely there's arguments for using filesharing better than it is, definitely there are arguments for throwing god awful DRM out the window, definitely there are arguments for looking at different ways of delivering music and movies to people, but just saying to all 'have at it' is not the answer either.

If you think you're entitled to music and movies and books for free (not lent, but to keep), and that the creators of those works deserve no compensation for their work, then you're a fool.

If you can think up a way to make everyone happy in this debate... then you're a genius!

So would it be fair to summarise your argument as: "There's no room for an anarchic mini-economy inside a capitalist super-economy"?

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Having just said what I did above... I've always been torn about filesharing in general and people trying to justify doing it.

I do it... but I know it's wrong really.

If I download music or a movie and I enjoy it, how is it right that I not be giving the artist compensation for that work?

Most people who copy stuff will say 'Yeah, but the artist doesn't get much anyway, it's the evil record/movie companies that get most of the money, so fuck them'.

Except that doesn't solve the problem does it? Just because you don't like the corporations, not getting any money to the artist doesn't solve a thing.

Other people say 'music/information should be free man'. Um... ok, but then how do those who make said music or information make a living? Hmmm, if they're not paid for the thing they spend time creating and others do enjoy consuming... how are they supposed to make money?

And if you say 'well, they should tour and make money that way', then get stuffed. I KNOW they CAN make money that way, and do, but there are those who produce music in ways that don't translate to live shows, and then it only works for those that are in the areas where the acts do tour. So you're saying it's ok for those outside those areas to consume the music for free and not give the artist anything just because they live in some area that bands don't tour? Riiight.

Definitely there's arguments for using filesharing better than it is, definitely there are arguments for throwing god awful DRM out the window, definitely there are arguments for looking at different ways of delivering music and movies to people, but just saying to all 'have at it' is not the answer either.

If you think you're entitled to music and movies and books for free (not lent, but to keep), and that the creators of those works deserve no compensation for their work, then you're a fool.

If you can think up a way to make everyone happy in this debate... then you're a genius!

Having just said what I did above... I've always been torn about filesharing in general and people trying to justify doing it.

I do it... but I know it's wrong really.

If I download music or a movie and I enjoy it, how is it right that I not be giving the artist compensation for that work?

Most people who copy stuff will say 'Yeah, but the artist doesn't get much anyway, it's the evil record/movie companies that get most of the money, so fuck them'.

Except that doesn't solve the problem does it? Just because you don't like the corporations, not getting any money to the artist doesn't solve a thing.

Other people say 'music/information should be free man'. Um... ok, but then how do those who make said music or information make a living? Hmmm, if they're not paid for the thing they spend time creating and others do enjoy consuming... how are they supposed to make money?

And if you say 'well, they should tour and make money that way', then get stuffed. I KNOW they CAN make money that way, and do, but there are those who produce music in ways that don't translate to live shows, and then it only works for those that are in the areas where the acts do tour. So you're saying it's ok for those outside those areas to consume the music for free and not give the artist anything just because they live in some area that bands don't tour? Riiight.

Definitely there's arguments for using filesharing better than it is, definitely there are arguments for throwing god awful DRM out the window, definitely there are arguments for looking at different ways of delivering music and movies to people, but just saying to all 'have at it' is not the answer either.

If you think you're entitled to music and movies and books for free (not lent, but to keep), and that the creators of those works deserve no compensation for their work, then you're a fool.

If you can think up a way to make everyone happy in this debate... then you're a genius!

Far too many people take it for granted, without adequate evidence, that file sharing harms sales of small artists, rather than giving them free publicity that increases sales.

http://www.openp2p.com/lpt/a/3015

A great effect of filesharing has been the increased availability of millions of niche works which were previously almost impossible to find. People can't buy your product if they don't even know it EXISTS.

>> ^shuac:
Will they be able to continue to make movies as file sharing grows? It's not like they have another job they can fall back on. I realize I'm assuming that a shared file equals lost box office/DVD sales revenue, a super-simplistic equation but think about it: as file sharing grows, what will ultimately happen to the existing box office/DVD sales revenue? Surely, it must eventually shrink and given enough time, the dwindling revenue would collapse the industry altogether, wouldn't it?

The connection between downloaded copies and box office revenue is an interesting point. Let's take a look at a graph provided by the US branch of the pirate party: Link

Considering the almost definatly exponential growth of filesharing, one might argue that the detrimental effect it has on box office revenue appears to be somewhere between small and negligible or miniscule. The mentioned drops, or better lack thereof, in revenue when a new filesharing platform hits the scene further strengthens this impression, i'd say.
Not everybody has a home theatre and let's be honest, we're going to the movies for the experience, not the movie itself. It will remain a constant revenue stream, most likely even large enough for the actors to get a seven or eight figure paycheck.

Now, DVD sale revenue will decline, no doubt about it. But it would not cease completely. They'd have to offer some additional gimmicks, a nicely styled box or maybe some James-Bond-condoms inside, who knows. People will keep buying them, because people are collectors and love to have nice things to show. It might not be enough to keep up the 20+ million dollar wages paid these days, but they'd survive.


Not helping matters is the movie industry itself: they seem to be fighting file sharing in the same way the music industry did, making all the same mistakes, desperately clinging to the old model because it's in their comfort zone. How much longer will it take for them to start suing individual file sharers?

The music industry already did, the videogame industry as well ... not sure about the movie industry though. Some have realized just how pointless it is, but they'll keep clinging to their monopoly as long as the legislation lets them. Seeing how popular, wide-spread and easily accessible filesharing has become, i'd say even the most bullheaded executive will realize sooner than later that it's a lost cause.

Once the governments stop caving in to their demands and stop producing one unconstitutional law after another, the media industry will eventually have to adapt.

I've seen some interesting alternative business models for the media industry over the last few years that might work rather nicely, once private copies (every non-commercial use) are fully legalized - and they will be, eventually. They have to be if we want to keep our right of privacy.

One or two of them might even be worth a discussion over here if anyone's interested. There are always some weakness to be found, some points that were not taken into account (correctly).

So let's say *obscure b/c until now I hadn't heard of him (though that of course isn't the sole reason... most people in the offline world probably haven't either).

This Wiki quote is amusing - he gets big publicity from the online world... but then turns around and bites part of it. Though I guess the bittorrent crowd isn't exactly the same as the YT crowd, so perhaps this is totally understandable:

YouTube Fame and Beyond

Self-described as "just this guy from Topeka, Kansas who kind of blew up on the Internet about a week before Christmas," McKee became an online sensation after videos of his performances were posted to YouTube by his record label. The video for "Drifting" was massively upvoted by users at Digg, spreading McKee's fame even further.[3] Since then he has appeared by invitation on Woodsongs as well as Last Call with Carson Daly, and his online store completely sold out of his various guitar tablature books; due to massive demand, sheet music for nearly all of his songs is now available to purchase and download from CANdYRAT's webstore. He has also contributed to Josh Groban's 2007 Christmas album, Noël, playing guitar on the song "Little Drummer Boy" - the album went on to become the best-selling CD of 2007, hitting #1 on the U.S. Billboard 200.

[edit] Response to Filesharing
Andy McKee comments on The Pirate Bay
Andy McKee comments on The Pirate Bay

McKee has, in the past, personally commented on BitTorrent websites hosting his music, chastising downloaders for their actions. Posting to The Pirate Bay under the name "AlteredTuning" (which is the same handle he uses on his own website's message boards), McKee sarcastically echoed other commenters' thanks to the original uploader of his album:

Yeah thanks a lot for uploading! It's not like I need to make a living with my music or anything.

8,676 thieves.

If you really appreciate what I am doing, buy my CD legitimately so I can continue to compose music rather than work at K-Mart. I'm not Metallica. I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars, much less millions.

Andy McKee [1]

this study is utter bollocks.
CD sales are down, filesharing is up, I haven't bought a CD since 2001 or something. But most of the files I download are independent music or friends, not major label chart releases, so I couldn't buy this stuff on CD even if I wanted to.

World is changing. CDs are dead. One bunch of academics doing one study is not going to convince me otherwise.

what next? "A recent study shows that after watching comedy central clips on youtube people go out and buy a TV" lol

"A recent study shows that after a journey on a train people demand more horseriding" pffff

From wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay

[DNA sample??!?!]

At around 11 a.m. CET [8] on May 31, 2006, a major raid against The Pirate Bay and people involved with the site took place, prompted by allegations of copyright violations.

The raid, in which some 50 police officers participated, shut down the site and confiscated its servers, as well as all other servers hosted by The Pirate Bay's Internet service provider, PRQ Inet. PRQ is owned by the current managers of the Pirate Bay.

Three people, Gottfrid Svartholm, Mikael Viborg, and Fredrik Neij, were held by the police for questioning, but were released later in the evening. Mikael Viborg, the legal adviser to The Pirate Bay, was arrested at his apartment, brought in for questioning, forced to submit a DNA sample and had his electronic equipment seized.[9] All servers in the server room were seized, including those running the website of Piratbyrån, an independent organization fighting for file-sharing rights, as well as servers unrelated to The Pirate Bay or other filesharing activities.[10] In addition, other equipment were also seized, such as hardware routers, switches, blank CDs and faxes regarding air conditioning.

The Swedish public broadcast network Sveriges Television cited unnamed sources claiming that the raid was prompted by political pressure from the United States which the Swedish government firmly denies.[citation needed] There have been claims of "ministerstyre" (lit. "minister rule") in connection with this allegation.[citation needed] Ministerstyre—when a politician pressures another government agency to take action—is a crime in Sweden.