Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) [LWN.net]

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 25, 2004 12:05 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)
In reply to: Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com) by ccchips
Parent article: Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

This is the most insane justification of such evil rights-stripping attempts
I've ever heard... "Well, some people do bad things, so you have to expect
our corporate overlords and masters to punish us all in return for the
wrong-doings of a few! Stop whining, and bow to your masters!"

Do you actually think that way?? My god, I pity you, if so... *shudder*

You seem to think our freedoms are PRIVILEGES granted to us by our corporate
masters, and not inalienable RIGHTS... You seem to think it's perfectly ok
and justifiable that we ALL lose these freedoms just because some people are
doing things which upset those corporate overlords... It's attitudes like
yours which make their job of taking away our rights so much easier... You
sit back and blame it all on everyone else for messing up a good thing, with
not a bad word for the ones actually DOING it... You excuse their reprehensible
actions as justifiable under the circumstances, and live with it... And, as
a result, we all wind up with a bit less freedom... ;-/

(Log in to post comments)

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 25, 2004 17:45 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

I give up. You know what I'm trying to get across, and that I don't like these new laws either, and that they are evil.

But you also know that's no justification for people distributing music and movies without permission.

You must also know that this fight is going to hurt legitimate peer-to-peer users.

Hell, if you think I'm siding with the recording industry, then I just give up. Go ahead and fight them whatever way you want. Just stand by and let people copy whatever they feel like.

There are other ways out of this mess, and if nobody wants to make the effort to see what they are, fine. I give up.

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 25, 2004 18:13 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> Just stand by and let people copy whatever they feel like.

Well, it's not MY job (or yours) to police what other people do... I'm
not a cop, nor am I the holder of the copyrights being infringed by all
these other people you speak of... If I were, then I might care, and I
would try to enforce my copyrights... But, I wouldn't try to force the
government to pass insanely draconian laws to help me wipe out any
possibility of anyone ever infringing my copyrights... I already have
plenty of existing laws around to help me enforce my copyrights, without
the need for any others... And, I certainly would NOT expect anyone else
to do my work for me in policing those infringing my copyrights... No one
else has the authority or the responsibility to do so... So, I'm really
not sure what you're trying to get at... If you think preaching to people
not to break the law is going to actually convince anyone to not break the
law, well I think you're more than a little naive... And, if you're
advocating that we should do anything other than such futile preaching,
then I think we simply don't have any authority to do so... I suppose you
can rat people out to the proper authorities, if you really want to; but,
not everyone feels comfortable being a fink... And, we certainly have no
responsibility (legal or moral) to do so... Do you report all speeders
and jay-walkers you see to the cops?? How about if you see someone smoking
a joint at a party you're attending?? Most people live and let live... If
they're not doing anything we find seriously horrible, we don't try to stop
them or get them into trouble over it... And, I for one, don't find
downloading a few MP3s to be seriously horrible, or any worse than the
above-mentioned petty pseudo-crimes...

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 25, 2004 18:50 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

No point in drawing an analogy with a victimless crime (if you want to call it a crime.)

People view records, CD's, DVD's videotapes, and movies as *products*, like lamps or furniture.

I don't want the government involved either, but for that to happen, people have to police themselves.

You draw the "joint" analogy, and it works perfectly into what I'm saying.

In the 1970's, when people were starting to see that reefer wasn't so bad, the "market" responded by putting pipes, rolling-papers, bongs, and all manner of other drug paraphernalia into stores that sell candy and comic books to children. In other words, the market didn't police itself.

I assume you must know what happend because of this: Now, you wouldn't want a cop to see your water pipe, even if it's completely empty of any drugs. Even though you're an adult.

I don't agree with these laws, but neither was I in the least bit impressed when I saw an adult sell a bong to a 10-year-old, in a store, as a legitimate transaction. I suspect that if such behavior had not taken place at all, I might still be able to go into a store, as an adult, and buy one for myself.

...in other words, I couldn't fight the drug paraphernalia laws with that kind of inertia against me. This is the same thing all over again, but what's the use if no one else sees it that way?

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 25, 2004 19:54 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> People view records, CD's, DVD's videotapes, and movies as *products*,
> like lamps or furniture.

The actual physical CDs and DVDs and tapes, yes... But, I would disagree
with you that they view music and movies as "products"... *I* certainly
don't... They're abstract creations of someone's mind... In the same way
that if you told someone a story, they wouldn't view it as a "product"...
Recording yourself telling that story doesn't change that fact... They
would see the physical recording of the story as a "product", perhaps, but
that wouldn't change their feelings about the STORY itself... And, combine
that with people not seeing easily-downloadable digital media as "products"
either, because they're so ephemeral and non-physical, and you understand
why so many people have no problem with downloading music, movies, software,
etc., illegally... It doesn't FEEL like any sort of real-world crime...
Nothing is being "stolen"... If you walk into a store, and swipe a CD or
DVD, then that store has one less physical disc to sell; you've cost them
money... That's obvious to most people that it's wrong... When you just
download a copy of a song/movie, you're not depriving anyone of any money
or physical property... You're just copying digital data... People don't
see it as a big deal... And, I'm one of them who doesn't... Would I like
to see copyrighted works of mine illegally copied online? Of course not...
But, I also wouldn't get TOO overly worked-up about it, either... Because,
they're really not depriving me of much of anything... They're just
'unfairly' getting to access whatever my work is without paying me for the
privilege... Annoying and unfair, perhaps, but not a high-crime, either...
Sort of on par with people who block web ads when going to some web site:
they're unfairly getting access to the site contents, without 'paying' for
the privilege, by viewing the ads that fund the site... Is such a thing
wrong? *shrug* Maybe... It depends on the situation, and your point of
view, I suppose... But, in any case, it's certainly not a major crime
worth getting worked-up about, or trying to turn into the ultimate evil in
everyone's eyes... People will continue doing it, period... There's no
fighting human nature... Sane people will understand that and account for
that in their business plans... I think everyone that releases commercial
software (for instance), knows full well that some number of people WILL
be pirating their software, no matter WHAT lengths they go to to make it
hard to do... But, yet, somehow, the commercial software industry survives
anyway... Why? Because, it really doesn't harm them a whole lot; it just
annoys them... In the end, MOST people WILL pay them, because most people
aren't really evil, heartless assholes... I know, that may be hard to
believe sometimes, but I think it's true... ;-) Of course, SOME people
WON'T pay them, either... But, the thing is, they won't, in ANY case...
So, like I say, they're not much better off whether the thing is pirated or
not pirated... If anything, I'd bet they wind up better off when it IS
pirated a bit, because it spreads it to people who might not have otherwise
seen it, and who eventually cave in and pay for it... Witness Bill Gates'
quote from the story here the other day, actually wanting MS software to
be pirated if anyone's was going to be... He knows it's not really hurting
MS's bottom line much, and is probably much more beneficial than harmful...

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 25, 2004 20:58 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It doesn't FEEL like any sort of real-world crime...

And why the hell should it FEEL like real-world crime? It's perfectly natural thing to do after all...

While I do not always agree with RMS here he's alsolutely right.

In other words, when the public is challenged to show why publishers should not receive some additional power, the most important reason of all -- "We want to copy" -- is disqualified in advance.

If you'll think about it he's 100% right. People do want to copy. That's the whole reason any DRM will fail and any protection will be circumvented.

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 26, 2004 12:23 UTC (Sat) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

Then why not copy what people are offering to copy, instead of taking RIAA material? There are PLENTY of musicians around who are perfectly happy for us to copy, and often even re-distribute, their work.

That's actually the main point I've been trying to get across all this time: that we'd be far better off to support *them*, so the RIAA will then lose all its power.

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 27, 2004 7:59 UTC (Sun) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

But supporting independent labels and artists does not require passing any kind of laws against P2P networks; it requires (at best) copyright laws, and definitely ones looser than the existing ones. It might not even require that. What you're talking about is totally orthogonal to the actual issue of the bill.

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 28, 2004 15:21 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

No, it's not. As long as people are permitted to copy and distribute movies and music, there will be abuse. These crazy politicians are trying to stop that abuse by creating a hostile climate for copying, and this I do *not* agree with, because there are far too many legitimate reasons to have that ability, even for movies and music. I oppose this bill.

BUT, I also have serious doubts that this kind of bill will be stopped, if maqssive numbers of people continue to copy and then distribute materials from companies which the RIAA represent, and which did not give permission to copy.

I cannot understand why people who are so well-versed in the world of Free software, as yourselves, don't understand or agree with my point, which is that we, as leaders in the movement toward freedom, should encourage others to move *away* from RIAA-backed and prohibitive entities, and favor entities which are not prohibitive. I sincerely believe that such efforts will help to quell the political movement that appears to want to ban P2P networks and copying.

Even Richard Stallman, when talking about copying software, shuns the idea of copying proprietary software for 2 reasons (1) it aggravates the makers of that software into becoming more restrictive, and (2) it spreads proprietary software around, thus encouraging people to use it. He would rather see people copy free software, and distribute it, while at the same time encouraging others to do so.

Why wouldn't this same principle apply to music and movies?

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 28, 2004 15:50 UTC (Mon) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> I cannot understand why people who are so well-versed in the world of Free
> software, as yourselves, don't understand or agree with my point, which is
> that we, as leaders in the movement toward freedom, should encourage others
> to move *away* from RIAA-backed and prohibitive entities, and favor
> entities which are not prohibitive.

I don't think I saw anyone disagree with this point... I think it's probably
futile and unlikely to actually cause anyone to stop listening to RIAA music,
but there's certainly nothing wrong with trying... (It's the same sort of
situation with trying to convince most people to use open source rather
than Microsoft's software... Most people just aren't going to be convinced,
no matter WHAT you say or do... But, that doesn't mean you should stop
trying either...)

> I sincerely believe that such efforts will help to quell the political
> movement that appears to want to ban P2P networks and copying.

Now, THIS I think many people might disagree with... I think you're just
wrong about this... If lots of people moved away from RIAA artists, and it
really started hurting them, then they'd probably get even MORE rabid and
determined in the pursuit of such evil laws... After all, they'd have
demonstrably proven negative effects on their business now... (Whereas, if
it's THEIR music being copied, there's really NO negative effect on their
business... Despite their rabid claims to the contrary... Most studies
have shown that, if anything, music sharing INCREASES their CD sales...)
And, if there's even ONE copy of ONE of their songs floating around somewhere
out there, they'd be able to blame it all on the evil Internet pirates, and
still convince the law-makers that they've bought and paid for to come up
with more draconian laws... Indeed, many people have said that the REAL
reason the RIAA wants to eliminate P2P now is for precisely this reason:
they're worried that such easy access to so much music will cause people to
migrate to independent bands, and cause more bands to want to go independent,
and then the RIAA will lose all of their control... I think this theory is
probably exactly right... They're not worried about losing money from any
'piracy'; as has been shown, they AREN'T losing any money because of it...
They're worried about losing their grip on artists, and their complete
control over the entire music industry... And, rightfully so; they're on
the verge of becoming completely and totally obsolete...

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jun 28, 2004 17:15 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

Much food for thought here....good analysis.

I will apply my energy toward fighting these kinds of laws, and toward encouraging my friends and neighbors to look at alternative sources of entertainment that are more free.

Eliminate the negative, IOW.

Senate bill bans P2P networks (News.com)

Posted Jul 2, 2004 4:20 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Great analysis! That really explain difference between RIAA and MPAA positions: new draconian laws are "the last hope" for RIAA while MPAA can exist without them.

Why so ? Movies can not be created for cheap. You need a lot of stuff to create good movie. Not $100 millions for sure but not $10'000 either. And you can not return all this without help of some distributors thus movie creators will seek help of MPAA for foreseable future.

RIAA on the other hand is obsolete already: $$ needed to produce good music can be raised by concerts and donations (you do not need super-high-end hardware to do succesefull song if you have something in head). If you'll remove (and I mean totally) any sales of CDs today there still will be enough musicants to fill the void (yes, some will be ruined but it'll be minority!)

So while MPAA can survive with appropriate change in direction RIAA can not. And they will find a way to harass everyone till they'll run out of power - and it does not matter if you are doing something illegal

today

or not. They'll find a way to make you criminal tomorrow.