Comments on: File-sharing battles leave us out

Patrick Ross of Progress & Freedom Foundation says noise from file-sharing combatants threatens to drown out those seeking a middle ground.

[ordaj]

I can guarantee you that...

...the "The Progress & Freedom Foundation" is for neither, but probably a front for the RIAA/MPAA.

Who funds them and is aligned with them? Yet another in a long, long list of duplicitous, deceiptful, and covert groups pretending to care about the interests of the average person.

And even if they're not, because so often we find this to be the case, they still get to be tarred with the same brush.

"You have been Armstronged!"

[mosshaven]

Middle ground? Not this guy!

"...the Progress & Freedom Foundation filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the RIAA and MPAA..."

What a surprise! And after all that talk about "middle ground" which actually would be a good place to stand...if it was really there. This is more like the Civil War and it will be settled the same way. By a trial of force; not of arms but of dollars. So my movie and music dollars stay in my pocket until the distribution model improves. Like after the RIAA and MPAA have turned to dust like the dead parasites they are. IMHO...

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Middle ground?

The fact the this so-called "Progress and Freedom Foundation" has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of the MPAA/RIAA demonstrates to me that they have no interest in finding a middle ground and are likely in the pockets of the big media/content companies. The power of these companies is so immense when compared to the other side (which is mostly made up of activists) that they have effectively quashed any debate that may otherwise be possible. One only has to look at the extension of copyright length, DMCA, broadcast flag, etc. to see that these companies have bought off the people that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people that elected them. I fear a future when all content is locked-down -- even content that one has legally paid for. The middle ground lies in the notion that all industries eventually fall victim to new technologies and either evolve or die. The fact is that most of the content that can be downloaded from online services (whether its P2P or sanctioned) is of a lower quality than what is offered on CD's and DVD's. The sanctioned services not only charge for the download, but also wrap their downloads in digital restrictions management which might keep people from burning the content to a disk or transfering it to the portable device of their choice. Our bright digital future has been sold and the consumers are left to pay a princely sum for scraps from the table.

The undefined middle ground

Not very impressed by someone professing to represent the middle ground without actually saying what that middle ground is supposed to be. When the PFF say they represent the middle ground they probably reprensent the middle ground between one group and one fictional group. This 'middle ground' happens to be the same ground which whoever pays them the most inhabit too. Strange...

[tharcod]

The problem is

You want to know why you're getting DRM and why the RIAA is cracking down?

Peer to Peer isn't anything new, despite all the attempts of various people to make it into something new. UUCP and the FidoNet have been doing Peer to Peer for longer than most of the Peer to Peer users have been able to walk.

When you joined a file distribution network, peers in the local city would exchange files by tlaking to each other. A master peer in each city would communicate to other master peers each night, and files would propogate through the network.

Most networks were legal, but there were some that were pirate networks distributing illegal software.

The only difference between these networks and peer to peer is a difference in time scale. Where as a modern P2P network can establish an instant connection and can propogate the files quickly over highspeed internet, these systems used 9600 baud connections and might take days -- or even weeks -- to propogate a file.

Game developers, and others, tried making unprotected games. What they saw was that the files hit these file sharing networks and went nation wide within days, and hundreds of thousands of copies were distributed from these sites without people ever paying.

And so copyprotection became standard. While copy protection didn't stop these networks from bootlegging the games, it slowed them down considerably buying weeks or months in which users could not casually copy the game, and in which the game wasn't yet "broken" and posted to the software sites during which time users had to actually pay for it.

The folks at Apple, Real, Microsoft, etc. have been in the industry long enough to see this. They've participated in efforts with the government to shut down these rings, etc.

So now you have the MPAA and RIAA wanting to sell content to end users via the Internet, and they are depending on software companies who are already intimately familiar with peer to peer systems being used for piracey who are giving them advice.

And so you get DRM.

Peer to Peer is not new. Nodes in the FidoNet were refered to as peers, files going over the various file distribution systems that used fidonet backbone systems were referred to as peers. The behavior -- identification, negotiation, exchange -- is identical.

All that is different is timescale.

I do not like DRM, and the content providers do not like DRM. Nobody involved in DRM likes it, not even the companies selling it.

But what's been shown is that users cannot be trusted to act honestly. It's been shown for over 30 years now, and it'll be shown for another 30 years.

The problem is ... greed

This debate has raged on for years. It used to be home taping of records and video tapes and all that has changed is the medium and copying method. The reason as to why has never been properly addressed and, unfortunately never will be.

It is fair to say that most people, given the choice of something for free or something to be paid for will choose the former. Add in whether the act is illegal or not shifts the balance somewhat, but not by a great deal. This is human nature and will never change.

The record and movie companies only have themselves to blame for this situation. Knowing what human nature is, they have ignored that, and continued to operate a closed shop on the provision of music and movies to the masses. Profits are still obscenely high and all the companies have to do is rake in the cash. If prices were made more realistic and a competitive market created that would be a start, but a simple solution for the music side would be to allow legal downloads of complete albums at 96 or 128kb/sec for a minimal fee (a couple of dollars) with a credit to purchasing the full bitrate album. This would allow the user to decide whether the album was worth buying, and of the subsequent retail price were lowered, I doubt you would see as much piracy.

As I said earlier, piracy will never go away, but instead of trying to protect their monopoly, the entertainment industry should be trying to move with the times and make the most of the way things are now before completely losing control.

[lewissalem]

Let see here.. The PFF is "middle ground?"

The PFF. A PAC located in DC founded by policitical figures and attorneys. Sounds like a bunch of guys that really are in touch with our technologically advance youth.

There is no middle ground. The industry stated that when they started suing.

[hadaso]

The real "midle ground" is "Creative Commons"

The real "midle ground" is "Creative Commons" (http://creativecommons.org/) letting creators offer freedom to users while keeping some rights (Their slogan is "Some rights reserved" as opposed to "all rights reserved")

Their chairperson is Lawrence Lessig (http://lessig.org) and I really recomend downloading and reading his book "Free Culture". It shows how we are entering the new "midle ages" where information is controlled by a few rich entities, and anyone who cannot afford a lawyer is out of the game of creativity. But the real reason to read it is that it's well written and fun to read, and you can learn a lot from it.

[yetiwisdom]

LP>8-Track>Tape>CD>MP3>? -- Reap What You Sow

I have no sympathy for the labels or MPAA. They gleefully stuffed re-formatted media down consumers' throats from the 70's to 90's and now they want to be seen as victims and for Congress to legislate appropriately. How many times do I need to buy an album? I've probably spent $50 on each of my favorite albums over the past 30 years and I for one am thrilled to have control over my music media for the first time in my life.

I'm one of those activists mentioned in this article - I made phone calls to my Congresspeople and Attorneys General to kill INDUCE and I will continue to do so. Until the MPAA and RIAA stops ripping its customers off for recycled content, suing p2p users and extending copyrights indefinitely, I will continue to do so.

I want the artists to take control of their own distribution channels and to get the lion's share of the profits.

The real solution is to institute a monthly fee and perhaps a small tax on CDR's and DVDR's that exempts p2p users from lawsuits that is then distributed as appropriate to labels/studios.

Of course it will never happen because then they won't be able to rip us off any more. How sad.

[Prndll]

The middle gound?

Come on! You can't be serious???? There is no such thing. There can't be. There won't be.

I agree very much with previous posts that the control over my media is for the first time controllable by me and that the recording industry has without a shadow over any doubt destroyed any kind of "middle ground" once the lawsuits started....lawsuits against 14 year old girls! Please!

What this whole thing means is that the people (i.e. the masses) are just as influential and powerfull as major cooperations and governments. People on mass tend to eventually get what they want, and the people of Earth HAVE stated quite clearly what they want. It is upto the RIAA and MPAA to evolve or wither away.

How many blacksmiths lost their jobs and livelyhood due to the technological evolution of the automobile replacing the horse-drawn carriage? Wouldn't you agree that this was for the better? .....This industry MUST evolve.

No lawsuit or legal influence can change the fact that THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

All frustration aside though....
An understanding needs to be had that both sides feel moraly and ethicly bound by their actions. This creates tension by it's very nature. Just like anything else. It is essentially the same thing that lead upto the Boston Tea Party. Now, they have the money, the power, and the means.....they need to lead by example (be the better man) and make changes that are just and right and correct in order to make money AND give the people what they want. The artist NEEDS to get a higher percentage and this particular business model NEEDS to be changed to conform to current AND future technologies. The major television networks are experiencing a similiar situation....the internet HAS changed things. The powers that be just don't seem to want to except this and deal with it appropriately.

The way I see it, the real problem is with the RIAA/MPAA (aka Hollywood and certain major cooperate entities), NOT the people. The people have only (just simply) stated what they want.

Innovative Ideas Needed, Not This

I was very happy to see that many of you were not buying into this idea of a "middle ground", or the laughable idea that PFF somehow represented anyone besides corporations (this is just my opinion however, please feel free to disagree with me... not like I could stop you ;).

What is needed now are REAL solutions. No amount of lawsuits will mean anything in the scheme of things. There has been an idea floating around for years about an internet tax that would pay for use of copyright material. Now I'm not saying this is the right answer, or that it could work in all situations (because it wouldn't), but would most people be willing to pay 3$/month for the ability to download any mp3 they want legally?

All of that aside, I want to get back to my subject, being that we need innovation. Sadly, even if a person/group was to come out with the end all be all solution, getting it passed as a law in all major countries with internet service seems impossible. We can also forget about getting it implemented in a timely manner in a country such as the U.S..

I think this will be something we will just have to ride out. I have no idea what will happen, but at this moment in time, p2p groups seems to be slowly gaining the upper hand (even with all of the lawsuits, there have been some court cases that have ended in a positive way for p2p - and more on the way). I will be very interested in the LokiTorrents (BitTorrent Technology) case, assuming it goes to court. Also Grokster (FastTrack Technology) and various copyright-related groups will speak in front of the Supreme Court on March 29th. As to date Grokster has already overcome 2 cases (original case + appeal), so hopefully they will be able to complete a hat-trick.

DRM standard, not rent seeking

As others have suggested, the PFF can be ignored. It's just another Heritage Foundation think tank with a veiled political agenda, not a genuine consumer protection agenda (unless you think privatization of everything is consumer friendly). What's really happening here is that the content industry is trying to protect a failing business model with the law/regulation. The only way to solve the problem for consumers and business is to encourage adoption of a universal DRM standard. A few antiquated business models may fail in the process. But that is truly the road to sanity in the digital liberties debate.

[Fray9]

Fallacy

The problem with that thinking though is that DRM is inherently flawed.

Anything you can do to data someone out there smarter than you can reverse.

DRM schemes can be removed, all digital data must be converted to analog in order for our human senses to percieve it.

In that instant the DRM no longer exists, and the audio and/or video can simply be recorded again without any protection.

The only sane solution is with a tax even though we all hate taxes bitterly.

Once thats in place we can begin to ensure that the artists doing all the work are the ones who recieve payment for it.

I think the industry average for a hit band netting $1 million in profit to recieve as payment is about $20k (you could make more working at a 7/11).