Slashdot Log In
File-Sharing Winners and Losers of 2005
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Dec 25, 2005 03:34 AM
from the sucker-born-every-minute dept.
from the sucker-born-every-minute dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A lot happened in the P2P world in 2005 according to Slyck news. From the article: 'BitTorrent soared to new heights while Steve Jobs enjoyed record breaking iPod sales. Yet not everyone shared this success. The RIAA continued its fight against P2P networking with little effect, as Sony-BMG disgraced itself and the DRM concept.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Quick Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Losers: **AAs, whose obsolete business model is faltering
Biggest Losers: The poor pre-teens and grandparents dragged into court by the **AAs.
Re:Quick Summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Winners: People who don't want to pay for music or movies and would rather steal them.
Losers: Businesses who have a right to sell their products under the protection of copyright laws.
Biggest Losers: The average consumer who has to deal with excessive DRM because of the "winners" above.
Thank you. Now let's see how many replies I get about how the U.S. copyright system is flawed, and big businesses take artists money.
Re:Quick Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's correct this once again shall we:
Winners: People who don't want to pay for music or movies and would rather steal them.
Losers: Businesses who have a right to sell their products under the protection of copyright laws.
Biggest Losers: The average consumer who has to deal with excessive DRM because of the losers above.
It is not the fault of the "winners" that certain businesses refuse to sell their product without draconian restrictions and inflated prices.
Parent
Re:Quick Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Winners: terrorists and murderers
Losers: patriotic all-American honest corporate cartels
Biggest losers: Mr. and Mrs. [patriotic] Smith
Does this labelling do any better for you? Just goes to show that you can label things any way you want to make your "point."
Parent
One doesn't follow from the other (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no.
The record company's business model had traditionally been a pay-per-listen model. Unlike today, people just 100 years ago had no disposable income. Most people's thoughts were of having enough provisions to survive; the idea of a middle class with income to spend on luxuries is a 20th century ideal. Even then, the real middle class was largely a result of the consumerism buoyed by the end of WW2.
So prior to the 50's people couldn't afford record players or player pianos or other ways of listening to music. Live music, radio, and juke boxes were how the record companies grew up and the model there is you pay to listen. Every time (and yes, listening to a commercial is paying to listen).
Even as record players grew in popularity and dropped in price, people didn't have large music collections. They started to hear music on radio's and then would put a nickel in the jukebox to listen to it again.
The 50's and 60's brought an explosion of relatively cheap music, which from the RIAA's standpoint was a good thing. Those LP's couldn't be copied (except for a handful of geeks...er.... HiFi buffs who had a reel-to-reel recorder but with prices at several hundrew dollars, was hardly worth the effort.
But as the compact cassette (and 8-track) grew in popularity the apple-cart was upset. People could borrow albums from each other and they could make copies! Forbidden fruit. The idea that an LP was special and uncopyable was gone. The physical DRM scheme in place at the time was rendered useless for people who could afford a cassette deck. And they could. And they copied a lot. Sometimes, they'd do it so much the record companies would raid "trading parties" on college campuses. Still,it was not a big deal and anybody with a cassette deck would do "Greatest Hits" tapes or make copies of friends albums. For the first time, copying had a measurable impact on sales. Still, the record companies figured out they could sell pre-recorded cassette and so all-in-all things weren't bad.
Then the Audio CD came out and it was back to the old deal for the record companies. DRM. You couldn't copy a CD! Unless you were one of those geeks with a lot of time, a lot of brains and a few thousand bucks to buy recordable CD's, but that wouldn't come for almost a decade.
But when MP3's came out nobody would have heard of them except for one sly move by fraunhaufer... they started to give away command line versions of their MP3 player, and they turned the other was as people reverse engineered MP3. The cat was and is out of the bag, and this time, a change in format won't help primarily because once its on your hard drive, format is now irrelevant. The old days of a new format every 10-15 years is obsolete. So once you own music, you never buy it again.
Understand two things that are important. You must understand this or nothing good will every come of this:
1) The record companies still believe they are entitled to "nickel" every time you listen. Its in their blood.
2) The record companies have relied on format changes to encourage sales of a back catalog.
So from their point of view, they want DRM not only to limit what you can do with music, but they also want it so you have to buy the same music again in a few years as they obsolete the current format. Remember this: The DRM would exist on the music even if nobody was stealing it. It allows control and control is the important thini
I say this... let people copy as much as possible. Let congress pass the most draconian laws protecting music and film possible, because then people will finally get tired being screwed by the record companies and real change will happen.
But whining about people copying RIAA music for free? Its like worrying that its not fair that you steal from the corner drug dealer.
Parent
One more try... (Score:5, Insightful)
Losers: Ego-driven and greedy but untalented millionaire executives at said corporations who will see slightly less profit this year from sucking the blood of people with actual talent by locking down their distribution channels, yet will nonetheless whine like babies that they're being ripped off by the very fans who made them millionaires in the first place
Biggest Losers: Slashdotters who aren't getting a penny of this money but still feel driven to defend these bloodsucking corporate drones every chance they get.
Parent
Re:One more try... (Score:2)
Re:I consider myself lucky. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal taste not withstanding (and judging from your comments, you seem quite intolerant of any personal preference that disagrees with your own), I guess it would surpise the hell out of you to learn that I've actually purchased DVDs of movies I'd previously downloaded, simply because I liked them... "Spiderman", "Underworld", etc. I also know quite a few others who've done the same, both personally (IRL, ie. siblings, personal friends) and online.
So much for the notion that every download is money "stolen" from the *AA. While I do agree that those who only download copyrighted material are contributing to the problem, berating those people only ignores the underlying problem of an utterly broken copyright system.
Sounds like you've decided to take the stale old "nothing new can possibly be good, only the old stuff is worth anything" approach that is so typical of those who are resistant to pretty much all change. I'm not much younger than you (just hit 34 in October). Almost 40? Big Frickin' Deal, that's not so old. Yeah, I too still love some older music and movies (classic rock, for ex.), but that doesn't automatically mean "new = crap". Yes, there is some new stuff that I would describe as crap, but there's also some great new music -- just bought Corrosion of Conformity's latest, and I dare say the forefathers of metal (Zep, Sabbath) would be proud. And movies: You're old enough to recall the classic Spiderman comics, and can probably attest to how faithful the movie was to the original story... unless, of course, comics are too "low-brow" for you. Seems to me you've let yourself become a stereotypical Grumpy Old Bastard long before your time.
PS: Roaches are not parasites, they are scavengers.
Parent
Re:I consider myself lucky. (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing that totally made me loose my mind yesterday, was when watching Reservoir Dogs (I got the Quentin Tarantino-box for christmas! yay!) and having to sit through a minute long commercial/lecture/accusation about how "
Re:Quick Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Biggest Losers: The average consumer who has to deal with excessive DRM because of the "winners" above.
No the biggest loser so far is democracy but I still hold out hope for a big win in the end. You see, the Constitution says many things about the rights guaranteed to the citizens of the US. Things such as freedom of speech, baring arms, fair trails, and protection against unreasonable searches, are written in stone. Copyrights and patents are not, they are just an option that Congress may excercise.
Re:Quick Summary (Score:2, Funny)
Are you perhaps thinking of fundamentalist Muslim theocracies?
Re:Quick Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Movies on DVD priced $10-$20 sell like there was not tomorrow. Music on CDs, usually cheaper than movies to produce, doesn't sell for $20+. It doesn't even suprise anyone anymore to find that soundtrack from latest and greatest movie costs more than the movie itself...
Number of DVD-s bought by me in last couple of years : >200
Number of CD-s [...] : 3
Robert
PS In my country (Poland) you can buy perfectly legal DVDs with movies added to magazines as marketing gimmick. The price of such magazine: $3-$6. And some of them are actually better than the crap that runs in the cinema, with price of such DVD being lower than single movie ticket.
My last two purchases:
"Ghost in the Shell": DD5.1 and DTS, JP, EN and PL audio, 20pln (~$6)
"Battle Royale": DD5.1 and DTS, JP and PL audio, 20pln (~$6)
The overall effect on the market is that now you can buy even movies from big houses (like Underworld from Sony) for ~$8 in big bookstores, without any tricks, rebates etc.
There's actually no incentive to burn movies rented or downloaded from the 'net: good quality DVD-R is ~$1.5, rental of hot item is ~$4 and I've actually seen DVDs with lower price in retail than in rental (e.g. Shawn of the Dead lately).
Parent
Re:Quick Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Quick Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that music or movies can be stolen is an invented notion like "intellectual property" itself, or for that matter, land ownership. (Remember, prior to our arrival, land ownership didn't exist in the US.) People are tr
Re:Quick Summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because we can all agree that music industry is evil and stacked against the artist, does not mean you're helping the artist by denying them even the measely few cents they would have earned on a CD sale.
If you really want to supp
Re:Quick Summary (Score:2)
'Science' means something like knowledge, generally. Copyright is intended to promote this by encouraging people to write about any sort of knowledge, whether it's a story they made up or is a book about facts they've discovered.
'Useful Art
Re:Quick Summary (Score:2)
Downloading isn't stealing.
Losers: Businesses who have a right to sell their products under the protection of copyright laws.
They have products nobody wants to buy, that's what makes them loosers.
Biggest Losers: The average consumer who has to deal with excessive DRM because of the "winners" above.
Naa, the industry is run by imoral people, they would do this anyyway. Especially since we see they just pick a number and r
Re:Quick Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
You correction needs correction. Don't worry, it happens to Microsoft too all the time ;).
Winners: People who want their games, movies and music free of rootkits, cd checks, the need to connect to Steam servers, and associated instability (try playing uncracked Morrowind on Win98), and who want them now instead of when the copyright holders can be bothered to sell them in their geograp
Re:Quick Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
And the various Release Groups + Suppliers (who do what they do for free) that got arrested.
Where do they fit?
Does society win because those (international) law-breakers were arrested? Do the releasers lose because they got caught? Does the **AA win because they 'got their man.'
I know this is touchy ground on
It's pretty short-sighted of Slyck's article to ignore the hardcore Releasers who generate most of the decent content P2P progs have access to.
Parent
Re:Quick Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm. Maybe it is time to invest in one of these companies.
Biggest Winner of 2005? (Score:4, Insightful)
A good year indeed...
Re:Biggest Winner of 2005? (Score:2)
Which brings up a good point: the lack of public outrage about the whole Sony debacle. That's the way to track the real "winners" and "losers". The fact Sony can get away with that kind of stuff with no retribution or brand damage really shows who's on top in all of this.
The RIAA is listed as 1 of the losers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P is only increasing the popularity of their wares. Much in the manner that pirated MS Windows in China only increases the popularity of Windows in China until comes such a time that Microsoft can demand payment (and crackdowns from the Governement). It might be years away, but at least they aren't using/learning to use/programming for that Linux thing.
Either way, the RIAA doesn't lose. It only loses if artists start seeing the RIAA as not the only way to distribute their stuff and earn a living (I gotta get signed man!)
But what is being done in this area? Free P2P downloads are certainly not going to entice artists. MP3.com used to be the avenue that I thought could open the way until some major label bought it and killed it.
Has this vacuum been filled?
Re:The RIAA is listed as 1 of the losers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The RIAA is listed as 1 of the losers.... (Score:2)
But the issue is that popularity doesn't necessarily mean an increase in sales, although sometimes it does.
I know people that can clearly afford to pay money for entertainment but do not, simply because they can download it even when it is clear it is against the wishes of the creators. One person simply claims that they are "borrowing", but does nothing to help compensate the creator even when they like it and keep it practically forever.
Re:The RIAA is listed as 1 of the losers.... (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Is MS felt that was the case, then it could give windows away in order to seed future customers.
However, ignoring even that, your argument is still bullshit. Note the "until comes such a time that Microsoft can demand payment" nonsense. Here's
Thank you, Internet (Score:4, Funny)
Without you, I wouldn't know what happened this year. You are truly the cure for my long-term memory loss.
Re:Thank you, Internet (Score:2, Funny)
Atleast, that is how I feel when I frequent
Re:Thank you, Internet (Score:2)
For the ignorant. (Score:2, Funny)
So this article is perfect for the **AA.
What happened to napster creator? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple iPod qualifies as "sharing"? (Score:4, Insightful)
That shouldn't take away from Apple's achievement. They've shown the popularity of back-catalog music, and how sales can be made in a digital age, something the RIAA cannot see (likely from greed).
the iPod long predates the iTunes Music Store (Score:3, Interesting)
I would be interesting, though, to see some sort of study on the proportion of iPod users who primarily use it for musical purchased on iTunes Music Store or a competitor, versus music downloaded from P2P or ripped from a CD.
Re:Apple iPod qualifies as "sharing"? (Score:2, Interesting)
iTunes used to have sharing built in. This was crippled in later versions (limited to 5 connections a day) as it was exploited to illegally copy music. Which was a shame, as it was easily the best all in one music buying/pirating/burning/managing/playing/memory-ea ting app for the Mac.
I see 2006 being much of the same as 2005 (Score:4, Insightful)
And if it's anything like 2005, someone will develop and release the newest and greatest P2P application which will be the 'best thing evar!!!1' until the RIAA and MPAA pollute it six months after release. Lawsuits against the creators of P2P apps will continue. And by mid-March, the RIAA will shoot itself in the foot again by filing a lawsuit against someone else's grandma, 12-year old child, or, just for a change of pace, a handicapped person. They will continue to garner more ill will then the MPAA, simply because of their continued stupidity.
Happy New Year.
Kierthos
This isn't about File-Sharing, it's about piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the "music piracy" winners and losers of 2005, not File-Sharing/P2P.
File Sharing is the big loser until people realise it has more applications than copying music (which I have nothing against btw).
Apple Computer haven't got much to do with File-Sharing and P2P - their one real link to it is that they recently crippled the File-Sharing in iTunes - surely this makes them a loser for P2P? They've virtually withdrawn from it due to people copying music illegally using their app! Their only victory is people can use their stylish, desirable players to play their warezed music, and that is nothing new. They are also a winner as all the zealot fans like me still buy all their shinies despite the DRM.
Microsoft also aren't mentioned - I'm sure they were experimenting using P2P to send software updates? Don't know what happened to that, anyway
Merry Christmas to you all, too
RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is one of the best on this subject that I have seen on Slashdot. That's exactly it.
The media industry has been giving away their music for free for nearly a century, through broadcasts. It has always been understood by the general public that one gets the music for free in the radio, and must pay only for the physical medium where music is recorded. Yes, I know, broadcasting is paid by advertising (or taxes), yadda, yadda, but the general idea is that no one pays to listen to the radio in the way that one pays to buy a CD.
The media industry wants us to believe that the opposite of "copying" is "buying". The opposite of copying is not copying, the opposite of buying is not buying. If someone refrains from copying a music the artist still starves to death, if his CDs are priced too high for the market. That's the true problem that the ??AA keeps denying: pricing. How is it possible for anyone working at home to produce CD and DVD copies that compete on price with mass-produced items?
I have some hobby machines for metal working at home. I could make nails, nuts, and bolts that are identical to the stuff you buy in a hardware store. But I could never make anything at a price that competes with the mass-produced hardware you get at the stores. That's why I don't see any complaints from the Precision Machined Products Association [pmpa.org] about people doing illegal copies of their products at home.
I could program a hobbyist lathe and milling machine to make a copy of anything the PMPA members sell, but mass production depends on specialized machines that no one has at home. It's the same for CDs and DVDs. The ??AA members make their products in specialized machines, optimized for making and packing millions of copies of each item. No one working at home with his LG-4163 CD/DVD recorder and printing the labels on his HP-890 printer would be able to compete with anything the ??AA members sell, if the prices were right.
Parent
saying (Score:5, Interesting)
is like saying
"The Aztec Empire continued its fight against the Spanish Conquistadors with little effect"
duh
both were quickly extinguished by the arrival of new tech, and i would say the RIAA knows what its like to be Montezuma right now
Re:saying (Score:2)
Not quite (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't really seem so. They managed to make the owners of the biggest P2P network (eDonkey2000) say they "throw the towel in".
Re:Not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
Why *AAs are loosers (Score:2, Interesting)
The problems with new products based
Read ThePirateBay.org Legal Page (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Read ThePirateBay.org Legal Page (Score:2, Insightful)
If you read their legal page, and most of their replies to the various lawyers, they keep repeating that what they are doing is completely legal in their country.
Their law has no problem with storing and providing metadata, which is all they are doing. OTOH if they were holding the actual content, that would be illegal.
Music(/information) = public property? (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny Article - Wither WinMX (Score:3, Funny)
Funny how they list the demise of WinMX, at the same time they have a link at the top of their page to download the current, operating version!
Define:Piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
I use bittorrent to infringe on copyright, yes. But I've never commited piracy.
And really, you've got most of that bass ackwards. It's the little guys who can go to places like iTunes or Amazon and get their CDs and songs sold for actual money, instead of signing a $10m contract with the RIAA and spending the next 20 years trying to pay off the $10m loan. Yeah. That's how the RIAA contracts work. You didn't know that, you say? You made that whole post with your ass you say? Hmm... Go back to kuro5hin.
Parent
Re:Define:Piracy (Score:2)
Re:More realistic: (Score:2)
Is this really true?
Is there less software/music/movies/tv shows produced than ever?
As far as the price... isn't the price set by the market? I know everybody says that piracy makes prices higher, but is that the case? Have CD prices zoomed up in the last 5 years?
It seems to me the only content that has gone up in price is that content which is protected beyond any reasonable measure to copy. Video Games are a good example to me.