The Only Way To Stop File Sharing Is To Stop Private Communications

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Christian Engstrom, one of the Pirate Party’s elected officials in the EU Parliament, has a straightforward, but completely worthwhile read, about how copyright law today simply doesn’t fit with what technology has enabled. He worries that the laws are making nearly everyone a criminal — and worse, that the direction of change has to make it even worse, not better.


It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing fundamental rights. As long as there are ways for citizens to communicate in private, they will be used to share copyrighted materials. The only way to even try to limit file sharing, is to remove the right to private communication. In the last decade, this is the direction that copyright enforcement legislation has moved in, under pressure from big business lobbyists who see their monopolies under threat. We need to reverse this trend, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights.

Furthermore, he notes that when you look at the actual details, it certainly does not show an industry in trouble. Perhaps parts of the industry — the parts betting on distribution over plastic discs — have had some trouble. But the rest looks pretty damn good:


In the economic statistics, we can see that household spending on culture and entertainment is slowly increasing year by year. If we spend less money on buying CD records, we spend more on something else, like for instance going to live concerts. This is great news for the artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD record, but 50% of the revenues from a concert. The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.

It may well be that it will become more difficult to make money within some parts of the cultural sector, but if so, it will become easier in some other ? including new ones, that we have not even imagined so far. But as long as the total household spending on culture continues to be on the same level or rising, nobody can claim that the artists as a group will have anything to lose from a reformed copyright.

Finally, he compares the way the entertainment industry today reacts to file sharing to the way book publishers reacted to public libraries:


When public libraries were introduced in Europe 150 years ago, the book publishers were very much opposed to this. The argument they used was the same one that is being used today in the file sharing debate: If people could get access to books for free, authors would not be able to make a living, and no new books would be written.

We now know that the arguments against public libraries were wrong. It quite obviously did not lead to a situation where no new books were written, and it did not make it impossible for authors to earn money from writing. On the contrary, free access to culture proved to be not only a boon to society at large, but also turned out to be beneficial to authors.

But rather than learning from history, the industry still seeks to deny it.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Only Way To Stop File Sharing Is To Stop Private Communications”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
106 Comments
John Doesays:

Unfortunately, the tide will not reverse

Don’t think for a minute that congress and the White House don’t already realize that they can take away our liberties under the guise of copyright protection. It is a two for one deal with them. If they came out and made private communication illegal, there would be an uproar. But when they effectively do the same thing under the guise of combating piracy, the sheeple keep quiet.

Ninjasays:

What can I say? Great reading from TD.

But don’t hold your breath. We’ll need a few more years of human rights trampling before the industry will be put back at their place. And that’s specially true when the Governments around the world are happily using the anti-piracy war to implement censorship and surveillance tools on a tool that enables free speech (often against the excesses of the Governments).

fogbugzdsays:

As the restrictions become tighter and tighter the situation becomes more and more like screwing down the safety valve on a steam engine. Eventually there is going to be an explosion that does a whole lot of collateral damage. The industry should remember that when a steam engine explodes the first one that is taken out is the engineer who was screwing down the safety valve.

Perhaps a steam engine analogy is archaic, but so is the concept of distributing media on shiny plastic discs.

Chosen Rejectsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Say I wanted to remove drug laws. Would you consider me an advocate of breaking drug laws? Would you consider me an advocate of drugs? I can tell you that I am neither.

Say I wanted to remove speeding laws. Would you consider me to be an advocate of speeding? Not only am I not an advocate, but the fact that I want to remove speeding laws, should mean that I want to remove the idea of being a speeder.

I can’t speak for Mike, and I’m not going to, but you sure seem hell-bent on throwing logic and facts out the window. Just because some one says X law should go away or be changed, does not mean that they advocate breaking X law, nor even that they advocate that people should partake in the activity X law prohibits. In this particular case, plenty of people and studies (not just Mike) have shown that copyright holders (and lest we forget, more importantly, authors, musicians, artists, etc) could benefit greatly if file-sharing* were made legal.

*Note that I said file-sharing and not copyright infringement. If you make file-sharing legal, it is no longer copyright infringement.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, if the business models you promote through speeches and presentations, and try to sell to large companies is based on people being heavily sedated or drivers being able to delivery things really quickyly, I would say that you have a vested interest.

Mike has a vested interest. P2P / Piracy / “infinite distribution” suffers a hit, and his entire “work with piracy” business model thing sort of goes out the window. He knows it, which is why he pushes the piracy agenda as hard as he does.

No, Mike doesn’t support piracy, just the results of it.

Richardsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike has a vested interest. P2P / Piracy / “infinite distribution” suffers a hit, and his entire “work with piracy” business model thing sort of goes out the window.

What Mike (and I) object to is that enforcement efforts against piracy cause collateral damage to legitimate businesses based on p2p and “infinite distribution”.

It is like being against particular tactics in the war against Nazi Germany (eg carpet bombing) because they cause civilian casualties. Such a stance does not mean that you support Hitler.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

They are trying to push ULTRAVIOLET, with the promise to “buy once” play everywhere, it has 70 big players in it. Anything from content producers to hardware manufacturers.

ULTRAVIOLET is a content manager and big brother, you need to connect to its servers to get permission to play something you bought and it will log your habits and how you use that media.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

How would you propose to stop piracy without stopping private communications?

Straw man. The goal isn’t to stop piracy completely. It’s to minimize it, while balancing other things as well. You guys think in extremes too much. The world isn’t black and white.

Trying to make patterns of ones and zeros not copyable is like trying to make water not wet.

Yes, things are copyable and water is wet. If you guys want to change the law so that copyright is abolished, then go for it. Until then, realize that your views are in the minority, the law isn’t what you want it to be, and just get over it. You’re just being selfish dillholes with excuse after excuse.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is not the goal, the law from a technological stand point is already obsolete and it didn’t even pass yet, it was made redundant in the discussion phase and everybody pointed this out already.

Tell me how that law will reduce piracy? you probably can’t because a) you don’t understand how piracy works b) you apparently don’t even know how it happens.

Anonymoussays:

To stop filesharing you would have to stop private communications of any kind including paper, photo cameras, solid state storage devices, hard disks, wireless, phone lines, radio transmitters/receivers, recording devices of any kind.

I would like to see them try it.

Photo cameras today can store sounds.
http://developer.berlios.de/projects/wavextract

Guerrila tactics for the masses.
http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2011/03/how-to-use-qr-codes-to-promote-your-music-in-the-real-world/

Barcode file transfer
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Barcode_file_transfer

Build your own network.
shareable.net/blog/a-low-cost-low-power-diy-cellular-data-network

Will they forbid all of that?

out_of_the_bluesays:

"remove the right to private communication"

Done! Or nearly. Google and Facebook track you everywhere; Google reads your Gmail; your ISP not only logs all activity, but deep packet inspection taps are now being installed; Windows is back-doored for NSA; your phone can be remotely activated to listen and provides constant GPS location. Ain’t technology great, modernist Mike? — You’re at the same time enjoying and promoting the very mechanisms that “technology has enabled”. But you dash on heedless that a control system is being built using the very toys that you pay for — or believe that you’re getting for free.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

Extra extra! Read all about it! Modernist Mike broadbrushes entertainment industry! Likens them to 150 year old publishing industry!

Major fail on part of Pirate M… I mean, Modernist Mike! The past is the past, today is today. You can’t equivocate libraries loaning out books with freetards stealing music and movies. More FUD on your part! This isn’t about Freedom of Speech, this is just a bunch of people attempting to sugar coat the fact that they’re nothing but freeloading criminals. Update the site, Mike. Replace the banner with the TD logo up at the top with the Jolly Roger. Just show us who you are and what you really support already. We all know anyway.

/amidoingitright?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

“The past is the past, today is today.”

Wow – wisdom for the ages. I really hope you operate on that principle throughout your lift, because I can imaging the following happening:

– You are surprised every day when the sun comes up
– You are shocked that water boils at 212 degrees F every time
– You continue to touch hot stoves out of curiosity

/amiright?

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

Hahaha. Wow. That was pretty pathetic.

The principle I do operate on, to quote Jim Morrison, is “The future’s uncertain and the end is always near.”

I don’t worry about yesterday or tomorrow. Never have, never will.

I’m no fan of the sun and it never surprised me to see it come up, even as a child. I am rarely if ever around boiling water, even when it comes to cooking. I’m a fast food guy and have been since I was a child, so stoves and me rarely are around each other, thus I’ve never touched them. I was always interested in fire though, so I’m aware of what burns easily or doesn’t, what I should avoid (as in may be hot), etc.

/youarewrongbutthismaynotbenewstoyou

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

Oh, you mean kind of like the entertainment industry? And the whole “this will kill our industry” speeches they give every decade. And here we are, watching them piss and moan over essentially the same thing yet again.

Or perhaps comparing stopping anything in general to Prohibition. And how all it did was make it more profitable for criminals and outlaws? All the while, the public flaunted the laws put in place, which were eventually repealed after being seen for the dismal failure they were.

That kind of past experience to shape understanding of current happenings? I might say silly/stupid things on occasion, but I’m not as clueless as I like to act. It provides good cover. Make people think you’re an idiot, then blindside them with all the knowledge you do have that they don’t and leave them stunned and sputtering, or watch them walk off mad they lost the argument, or see them resort to personal attacks. Either way, it’s entertaining.

As for me personally, wtf are you talking about? I was making a joking/sarcastic post to start with, then you went off on one bit I said in it and here we are now. You still not even making much of a point, unless your point is to insult me (and you’re doing a bad job of it, just fyi).

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

Why don’t you fear a totalitarian government?
You honestly believe having a government that spies on everything you say, do or think is the way to protect your paycheck?
Where do you draw the line? Or could it be that you are just trying to be a Internet bully and don’t believe the totalitarian crap you are blathering about?
Sometimes this isn’t about the small minded argument about IP but just how much control you are willing to giveaway to your government.
I simply just don’t know what to believe from you and your peers any more.

out_of_the_bluesays:

Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

[Note to self.

) Don’t use witty names for Mike, just distracts from any point.

) Always disclaim NOT FOR big gov’t or big biz. Audience has the memory of gnats.

) Expecting a post to be read and grasped entire is too much, just sigh.

) Even if were read, people don’t care for the truth, not why they’re here.

) On plus side, brief works better. Attention span of target is 140 characters, keep it snappy.

]

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

While I appreciate that you are trying to be funny and sarcastic at the same time, I really do want to best understand your point of view.
While I may not be the smartest person to participate in this discussion, at 51 year old, I do think I have a pretty good grasp of the concepts. I appreciate a honest and well thought out comment.
I also want to thank you for your reply to my earlier comment. Your reply felt sincere and honest.
And I am here because I do care about and for the truth. I’m just willing to admit that what you and I may see as the truth, may not be the same. That’s what makes the real discussions interesting and insightful.
Thank you for the reply.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

“On plus side, brief works better. Attention span of target is 140 characters, keep it snappy.”

That’s odd, I remember a quote from you before where you complained about the length of the article.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/12220616236/lawrence-golan-speaks-about-golan-v-holder-his-fight-to-protect-public-domain.shtml
then do a CTRL-F for “out_of_the_blue”. You said you lost interest because it was too long.

Hang on…you also promised in that comment to go away if Mike didn’t provide you with interesting articles. Since he does, but you don’t count them as interesting (so the entertainment industry’s campaign to nickle and dime us each time we listen to a piece of music isn’t interesting), you lied.

E. Zachary Knightsays:

Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

“Google and Facebook track you everywhere; Google reads your Gmail; your ISP not only logs all activity, but deep packet inspection taps are now being installed; Windows is back-doored for NSA; your phone can be remotely activated to listen and provides constant GPS location.”

Hmmm. Not quite. Each can be bypassed with the following:

1) Don’t use Facebook and only allow cookies and ads from trusted sources.

2) Use an encrypted VPN connection.

3) Use Linux

4) Use a “burn phone”

Isn’t technology great?

RIch Kulawiecsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: "remove the right to private communication"

All good suggestions, especially “don’t use Facebook”. Or any of the others.

Add to these: use Firefox (never IE), do not use Outlook, use TrueCrypt, use Firefox extensions like NoScript and AdBlock, wipe your cache/cookies/etc., use encryption for email, nmap yourself and turn off everything you can. All these combined are just a beginning, of course, but they’re a pretty good beginning.

Anonymoussays:

What is funny on this one is that while true in an absolute sense, it is a bit of strawman argument.

The content producers aren’t trying to stop 100% of all piracy. There has always been a certain amount of play in the system (from lending of records, to ye olde mix tape, and so on) that while not “legal” in a perfect sense, was tolerated for the most part (and supported by the courts in general).

Since nobody is trying to stop every last iota of piracy, using that as the standard for success or failure is pure and unadulterated bullshit.

If you make it harder to pirate, make it something that is done only in your direct social circle and not with any dingbat online, piracy would drop dramatically. It would slow the spread, it would slow down distribution, and would certainly make it harder for the casual user to get the content via pirate sources.

So if you want to say “It can’t stop ALL piracy”, nothing short of killing all of humanity can do that. It isn’t about elimination, it’s about limiting.

Strawman posts always suck.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

If you make it harder to pirate, make it something that is done only in your direct social circle and not with any dingbat online, piracy would drop dramatically. It would slow the spread, it would slow down distribution, and would certainly make it harder for the casual user to get the content via pirate sources.

Speaking of straw men . . .

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

“If you make it harder to pirate, make it something that is done only in your direct social circle and not with any dingbat online, piracy would drop dramatically. It would slow the spread, it would slow down distribution, and would certainly make it harder for the casual user to get the content via pirate sources.”

Comments like these a show how little you (and people who post it regularly like you) actually know about piracy, copyright or anything remotely to do with distribution or even selling of goods and services. Its clear you haven’t worked a day in your life. At least not in Entertainment or Retail.
The fact is, in your world view all of the above seems to be major problem when it clearly isn’t, nor has it ever been. If it was, services that compete directly with things like “piracy” would not exist (they do) nor would they be profitable(and they are). None of this is new, the ‘industry’ has been whining about it for almost 200 years now, and yet they make more money year after year after year.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

The content producers aren’t trying to stop 100% of all piracy. There has always been a certain amount of play in the system (from lending of records,
to ye olde mix tape, and so on) that while not “legal” in a perfect sense, was tolerated for the most part (and supported by the courts in general).

Since nobody is trying to stop every last iota of piracy, using that as the standard for success or failure is pure and unadulterated bullshit.

If the copyright holders don’t want to pursue private copying between friends, so much more reason to legalize what they aren’t going to enforce.

If you’re saying is that it’s a strawman because no one would ever enforce copyright law against friend to friend sharing, sharing in these situations should be made legal.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“If the copyright holders don’t want to pursue private copying between friends, so much more reason to legalize what they aren’t going to enforce.

If you’re saying is that it’s a strawman because no one would ever enforce copyright law against friend to friend sharing, sharing in these situations should be made legal.”

It’s the same reason why the speed limit is set at 65, even if the police won’t write a ticket under 75. It’s the same reason why we have jaywalking laws, which are only enforced occassionally (or in the case of an accident).

You set the bar at a certain level, then you have some space for tolerance.

If the speed limit was raised to 75, and police attempting to enforce it hard at 76, they would be thrown out of court of not having some tolerance and common sense.

Sorry, modifying the copyright laws in the way you suggest is like the medical weed fiasco in California. What seemed like a good idea has just turned in to a way for dopeheads to get their drugs “legally” by having all sorts of aches and pains that only the weed doctors can “cure”.

Tolerance is what makes the system great. Don’t destroy it.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-safe-break-the-law.html

Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 MassHighway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will. Police have no legal role in setting speed limits. Somebody in the Romney administration weighed the risk of losing ticket revenue against the risk of being blamed for accidents. Police won.

After engineers lost that fight people began to worry about the high accident rate on Route 3. The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultant?s report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit.

Three years later, state officials have not followed the advice of their engineers, their consultant, or 100,000 drivers per day. State police are still out there running speed traps and helping keep the road as dangerous and profitable as they can.

Pretty system.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


It’s the same reason why the speed limit is set at 65, even if the police won’t write a ticket under 75. It’s the same reason why we have jaywalking laws,
which are only enforced occassionally (or in the case of an accident).

Yes, overcriminalization is really great. I assume you like the state having the power to caste a wider net in order to catch the occasional bad actor, while leaving everyone’s liberty up to the discretion of petty officials.


If the speed limit was raised to 75, and police attempting to enforce it hard at 76, they would be thrown out of court

If they could prove a violation, tell me how the court would have the power to dismiss the charge.

If the RIAA sued me for sharing 15 songs with 10 friends, tell me how the court could distinguish illegal distribution over the internet from illegal distribution to a small circle of friends.

If even friend to friend sharing is illegal, only judicial economy and prosecutorial discretion is the reason for not fearing the ‘strawman’.

The argument is not that enforcement of copyright law is now happening in a manner distructive of privacy, but that the only realistic way in which copyright enforcement to the extend permitted is going to be eeffective is destroying privacy.

What you’re arguing is actually close to the defense of sodomy laws not violating privacy.


Tolerance is what makes the system great. Don’t destroy it.

No, the rule of law is what makes a free society.

Privacy depends on the law, and if the law permits invasion of private communication merely for noncommercial copyright infringement, it’s a power granted regardless of how often it’s being exercised.

I don’t want my privacy having to depend on prosecutorial discretion when engaging an activity which is technically illegal even if the risk is near zero.

Copyright enforcement should either be driven to its logical conclusion or limited to commercial infringement.

btr1701says:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

like the medical weed fiasco in California. What
seemed like a good idea has just turned in to a
way for dopeheads to get their drugs “legally”
by having all sorts of aches and pains that only
the weed doctors can “cure”.

I agree. It’s nonsensical that we make people go through the charade of having to pretend to be sick in order to get the stuff. And I say that as someone who’s never even so much as tried it.

It’s ridiculous that ‘boozeheads’ and ‘nicoheads’ can walk into a store and purchase their recreational drugs of choice, but ‘dopeheads’ have to jump through these silly hoops to do so.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

First off, remember that cigarettes are very likely to disappear “in our lifetime”. The use of them is severely limited in many parts of the world today, and it won’t be long before there will not be any public places left in which one can smoke.

20 years ago, tobacco ads were everywhere, motor racing was awash in cigarette ads, and so on. They are getting more and more limits. The smoke companies are already moving themselves offshore, and at some point, someone in Washington will propose a law to severely limit or ban smoking altogether. It’s something that has to happen, it’s only a matter of time.

Booze? Plenty of legal restrictions, and we still face an epidemic of drunk driving and deaths as a result.

Weed? There is little to work with on the proof side that it is any more effective than other medications, and rather, it’s consumption has worse effects than smoking cigs. If it was tested as a new FDA medication, it would be rejected outright because of it’s dangerous side effects.

btr1701says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Washington will propose a law to severely
limit or ban smoking altogether. It’s something
that has to happen, it’s only a matter of time.

I’m sure the nanny-staters would love to do that. Hopefully someone will play them a few episodes of ‘Boardwalk Empire’, with the bootleggers raising toast after toast to Mr. Volstead, and they’ll see the light.

Or we could just flush another several billion dollars we don’t have down the shithole in another useless attempt to ban the populace from doing something it wants to do.

Booze? Plenty of legal restrictions, and we
still face an epidemic of drunk driving and
deaths as a result.

And yet it’s still legal, while pot, with nowhere near the bloody history of carnage from its use is not. Hmmm…

Anonymoussays:

If we spend less money on buying CD records, we spend more on something else, like for instance going to live concerts. This is great news for the artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD record, but 50% of the revenues from a concert.

What about the studio musicians how are they paid? What about musicians who are not performers but great recording artists nonetheless? If you like a song buy the song, I don’t care if it’s on physical media, or purchased from any one of the legal download sites, just BUY the song. That purchase pays royalties to alot of people who worked on the project.

The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.

The pirates have identified a nemesis and it is the record companies. This is really just propaganda, no one wants the record companies to go away, without them you would have fewer choices in music. And people may not like to admit it, but the record companies act as a filter for what is released, and sometimes that isn’t a good thing, but I can assure you there are many many people who want to release music that have no talent.

As far as record companies not adding value, consider this… Record companies provide a great deal of value to the recording artist – engineering, collaboration, post production, marketing, promotion, distribution (digital and physical media). For these services they obtain a portion of the profits, the size of that portion is determined by the individual contract signed by the artist. These artists are bound to these record companies because they needed help establishing themselves.

The comparison to the hysteria over public libraries is laughable. Public libraries do not have unlimited copies of books which is the problem with rampant music/movie piracy.

Everytime you illegally download a song you are adding fuel to the fire, you are providing yet another example for the RIAA to cite in its arguments against piracy.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

“What about the studio musicians how are they paid? What about musicians who are not performers but great recording artists nonetheless? If you like a song buy the song, I don’t care if it’s on physical media, or purchased from any one of the legal download sites, just BUY the song. That purchase pays royalties to alot of people who worked on the project.”

Paid by the hour like they are today?
If you like a song pirate that song and spread it so others know where to find that website or store for that artist and can support him financially.

There is no need for copyright.

“The pirates have identified a nemesis and it is the record companies. This is really just propaganda, no one wants the record companies to go away, without them you would have fewer choices in music. And people may not like to admit it, but the record companies act as a filter for what is released, and sometimes that isn’t a good thing, but I can assure you there are many many people who want to release music that have no talent.”

You are probably right, Jamendo after all is a record company a digital record company and people do use it and like it. People just don’t like the incumbents.

“The comparison to the hysteria over public libraries is laughable. Public libraries do not have unlimited copies of books which is the problem with rampant music/movie piracy.”

You know, what you said there was said 200 years ago and it didn’t change a thing, if I copy pasted the debates of the 1800’s you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
Now about modern libraries, I grew up going to them and copying text by hand xerox machines where not that common, after a time they become ubiquitous and I could copy anything, I even asked the librarians to make some copies, I do recall my teacher using a mimeograph and the smell of alcohol from the paper was so nice. Today I just use a smartphone to photograph the thing and can store hundreds of books in one small device.

If downloading a song is adding fuel to the fire, this world will burn.

Vicsays:

'music' 'industry' oxymoron

The music industry expects to see fourfold growth in the next couple of years, I was told by an insider. It won’t come from sales of discrete units of music, though, but from the paraphernalia surrounding the music: promotions (of other brands) by artists, collaterals, etc, as well as new music units such as ringtones, played/listened to in non-traditional modes.

The industry does not really care about piracy, therefore, but sees no problem in cooperation with increasingly coercive government processes.

Kasiasays:

The issue is not copyright, it’s the fact that these industries pushing copyright cannot adapt to a world with an Internet, where the “consumer” has real choice, where the competition for a big record label is an unsigned band, where the competition for the news is local amateur reporters who can have video online within seconds, and often report without the business friendly media bias we’ve all come to abhor. We need to take away the power these corporations have and let the market decide (which it has and to which copyright is moving against), and let these dinosaurs of capitalism collapse quickly and quietly.

why file sharing is bad...

file sharing is really bad for our government. It’s bad because you could have access to prohibited files. no one likes another random person snooping around your stuff until they plan to black mail you, or expose you (in a bad way). Or their just looking around your stuff which they shouldn’t be doing anyway. ๐Ÿ™‚ -Bobby

naschsays:

Re: Re: why file sharing is bad...

file sharing is really bad for our government.

By “file sharing” do you mean p2p networks, or people generally sharing files with each other? Because your concerns sound (I’m not totally sure I understand you) like they’re related to security, and not to file sharing as the term is commonly used.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow