P2P MUST be suppressed !!!
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Probably the biggest source of inane whimpering with which p2p advocates have to contend goes something like this:
“p2p — and, by extension, the technologies upon which p2p is based — must be suppressed because it’s a threat to the RIAA/MPAA’s ‘business model.’”
Now, there’s a lot wrong with this line of “thinking”, but opponents of p2p (Mindless RIAA shills?) don’t seem to be able to figure out where they went wrong, so I guess it’s up to me — your friendly neighborhood “recovering RIAA fanboy”, to help.
——-
The first — and most fundamental — problem — is: the data which indicate that p2p either has NO impact on sales figures, or actually increases them:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/3311/P2P+Helps+CD+Sales
I’m not going to waste time on that subject, because, to be honest, whether p2p helps or hurts the “music industry” (read RIAA and assorted other vermin) is utterly irrelevant for several reasons:
Let’s look at history.
Imagine it’s the early 20th century, and a representative of the IWAA (Ice-Workers Association of America) is testifying before congress:
“I say to you that these new-fangled ‘Refrigerators’ are to friendly neighborhood ‘Icemen’ and the American public as “Jack the Ripper” is to London Prostitutes.”
Examine the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(occupation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing
(Did you have fun reading all those wonderful links? I knew you would!)
The main point I take away from all of the above is this: ADVANCEMENT IS ABOUT DESTROYING “BUSINESS MODELS”.
Roll that over in your mind a few times.
Advancement ALWAYS inconveniences a (formerly) privileged segment of society:
Printing destroyed the “business model” used by professional scribes, the advent of refrigerators probably sent the local “iceman” into extreme pangs of butthutt, and just THINK what the advent of the automobile did to horse breeders and stagecoach drivers!
OH HEAVEN FORFEND AND FORBEAR! 
The situation with p2p is ALMOST analagous, except that in the former cases, the “business models” destroyed involved ACTUAL PHYSICAL OBJECTS WHICH WOULD BE BOUGHT AND SOLD.
The situation the RIAA/MPAA vermin face is complicated by the fact that, unlike with physical property, their “rights” to the monopolies granted them ARE EXPLICITLY INTENDED TO EXPIRE.
Patents and Copy’right’ are coercive monopolies — the most blatant form of “economic intervention” imaginable, and I, for one, find it really damned ironic that those DEFENDING SUCH monopolies are ALSO very often fans of our supposed “Free enterprise” economic system.
The relentless efforts to strengthen such monopolies are just the most blatant form of “cronyism” between State and Corporation, but it is by no means unique.
There’s no point being “law abiding”, when the “laws” in question are bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.
And, somebody please tell me what happened to all the blather about capitalism/”free markets” spurring “innovation”? Oh wait, my bad — pharmaceutical corporations ‘need’ patent ‘protection’ because they won’t innovate if other companies are “permitted” to compete.
(And I thought it was only Pinko Commie Left-wingers who said “the market doesn’t work!”)
That’s the “big lie” at the heart of all of our precious Self-delusion here in the West. The rise of p2p technology (and the cultural ’scene’ surrounding it) quite frankly, puts the lie to everything we THINK we believe about “the free market”:
1. p2p represents a truly innovative technological development, and the response of modern day “captains of (the entertainment) Industry” is to attempt to have it suppressed. (so much for all that bullshit about ‘building a better mousetrap’.)
2. Copyrights and patents EXPIRING? Not if the lobbyists can help it! 14 — 28 — life plus 75? Oh wait, now they say they “need” life plus 95. Where does it end? How long a monopoly is “too” long? Does ten thousand years count as a “limited” time? (The “Eldred” decision seemed to say as much.)
(So much for our Right-wing blather about the virtues of “competition”)
I’m tired of it, folks.
I’m pretty damn tired of corporate gas-bags whimpering about the “threat” of p2p WHILE REAPING RECORD PROFITS BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.
I’m tired of watching them STEAL another twenty/forty/sixty/thousand years from the ‘public domain’ at every turn.
I’m MOST tired — and offended — by our (s)elected leaders’ tendency to cave in, and declare millions of people all over the world to be “criminals” simply for re-asserting the public domain by the only means presently available.
——-
Thankfully, it’s changing.
1. If you’re a student, join — or start — a chapter of “Students for a free culture.” http://freeculture.org/
2. If there’s a “pirate party” in your country, join it. Volunteer if you can. (This is ESPECIALLY useful in nations unafflicted with the “two party” disease).
3. If you’re a coder, consider contributing to a p2p-related project.
4. Have a collection of obscure (but cool) music? Start a music blog.
5. If you’re an artist of some kind, consider distributing at least a PORTION of your creations under a CC license. (True, it’s not the same as a genuinely-vibrant public domain, but it’s a step in the right direction.)
6. Realize that the p2p thing is only ONE issue in a much bigger world: corporate “personhood” is just as bad — if not actually worse — than runaway IP law.
7. STOP giving the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI even the BENEFIT of the doubt. They’re NOT about “artists” and this is NOT about the “sacred right of property”. They’re technologically-illiterate corporate scumbags making sure they have enough blow to snort on their private jets.
8. If you’re an artist who’se lucky enough to still be “unsigned”: DON’T — under any circumstances, for ANY REASON. The “Major” labels will just screw you over completely, and you’ll perpetuate the idea that they’re still “relevant”. For more info: read this – http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
9. Learn the ONLY correct response to the claim that p2p hurts their business model: GOOD.
The sooner the RIAA (and all of their apologists) join scribes, Icemen, and buggy-whip manufacturers, the better.
10. Remember, kids: the “first sale” doctrine is your friend. Buy “used” whenever possible — ESPECIALLY in regard to digital media.
11. CDbaby is a good thing. Magnatune is a good thing. Jamendo is a good thing. “Unsigned” is a GOOD way to be. Let’s all consider supporting things that DESERVE to be supported.
12. If you’re a “creator” — artist, musician, author, whatever — wise up, and realize that no matter how much you pander to the RIAA/MPAA/corporate thugs, they’re probably never going to offer you a contract. Even if they did, you won’t actually benefit. They already have their stable of coked-up, multibillionaire has-beens (Look at Britney Spears — and she’s not even thirty, yet!) Two words: Milli Vanilli.
Another thing we all have to come to grips with is the fact that the RIAA-sanctioned version of “fame” is an artifact of their monopoly. The “mega-star” is a cultural disease borne of the fact that people stopped CREATING “content” and became passive “consumers” instead.
If you cherish some notion to the effect that supporting the RIAA’s bullshit means that someday you’ll be the next Nickelback, it ain’t gonna happen.
This isn’t an opportunity for debate.
As to whether copy’right’ and patents are “neccesary?” I’m adverse to the notion that coercive monopolies are a virtue, and I fail to understand how prolonging such monopolies seventy-five years past youw own death is a “good” thing. (They’re called “royalties” for a REASON.)
Think about it this way:
If you honestly believe in the “right” of your heirs to a perpetual monopoly at governmental gun-point, then why produce anything ever again? Why not just cut the first album, paint the first painting, write the first book, and COAST ON THAT forever?
It’s common knowledge that the vast majority of an album/book’s sales happen in the first few years, so “life plus 70″ isn’t likely to actually help your hypothetical great-great-grandchildren (or their corporate proxies).
It boggles the mind.
Henry Ermich – p2pnet
[Ermich says he's, "just some guy," sometime musician, wannabe writer, sporadic blotter, and (hopefully) good-natured person. He and his wife live in Pennsylvania with two cats, and, "entirely too many record albums".]
February , 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
awesome article Henry. I really liked your point about making only one album and coasting thru life on that.
stw
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Yer good article.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I sense some rage, but so much more truth. Keep it up. We’ll win yet!
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
If’ there’s no “rage” at this point, there’s no understanding, either.
In light of what happened over on the Patti Santangelo thread: please realize beforehand that I’m not a particularly “nice” person on some level. Then again, nothing is EVER changed by “nice” people. That was one reason why Lessig by his own admission, was unable to get the Supreme Court to see the copyright extension as “important.” There’s very literally no room for “polite discussion” either with RIAA/IFPI wonks, or the short-sighted, cynical type who get all heart-sick when Big Media manages to score one of their — increasingly infrequent and totally ineffectual — “hits”.
Ironically, the Copyfight/”pirate”/”Free culture” folks like us have an inestimable advantage over our opponents:
1. BOTH sides are “multi-national” in scope (us, because we’re in a lot of different countries, and THEM by means of local front-groups like IFPI). However, THEY utterly fail to understand either the technology, OR the “culture” enabled by that technology. This shouldn’t be surprising, because given their tendency to want “consumer” devices banned — or at least made to be “defective by design” via stupidity like DRM and region-coding etc., there’s a real “disconnect” between those making the policy, and those enacting it — by designing the DRM and region-coding and such. It’s two different “groups” so to speak.
2. Our side isn’t “organized” in that sense of the term. Rather, it involves everybody from FLOSS software advocates, open-source developers, p2p users, “Scene” releasers, music bloggers, Youtubers, Fanfiction-authors, the folk creating “mods” and “total conversions” for games, etc. Does anybody know that quote from the Tao Te Ching about how water is stronger than stone because it appears to be shapeless, but can wear down the strongest stone? That image almost — but not quite — captures what I’m going for.
3. We — unlike our opposition — are (sometimes) motivated by principles other than relentless greed, and lust for control. Some of us are prone to short-sightedness or cynicism, and, as I see it, THAT’s infinitely more dangerous than anything the RIAA/IFPI could ever do, because that cynicism and short-slghtedness COULD actually make somebody believe in the opposition’s “power”.
If that happens, we’ll see a day when (for example) people DON’T replace the stuff removed by Youtube. The RIAA/IFPI would love nothing better than unquestioning obedience, and they can only have that in one of two ways:
Either people actually believe that what the MediaThugs are doing is justified (which thankfully, many of us don’t),
Or, people are simply too terrified to disobey.
Either way, THAT’S when they “win” — not while their petty little shakedown-tactics culminate in even more contempt.
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
^^ Tao Te Ching about how water is stronger than stone because it appears to be shapeless, but can wear down the strongest stone? That image almost â but not quite â captures what Iâm going for.â
Good one, Henry.
Two works I like to read when Iâm getting confused (bearing in mind that as a constantly recovering addict, Iâm always confused
): The Tao [online version http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html and The Meditations (Marcus Aurelius) [http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html].
Not all the time, of course – just when the need arises.
I like Kurt Vonnegut too.
Cheers!
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Jon as “constantly recovering addict” do you mean you keep falling off the waggon and then climbing back on again?
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
^^ I’m not sure if you’re joking, but just in case you’re not, I’ve been straight for a long time, now, but I know I’m just one one drink or one toke (or anything else) away from landing right back where I started. That’s what I mean by ‘constantly recovering’.
Cheers!
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
When making these comparisons, there’s a big flaw, because there is one big difference between the situation now with Big Media and the businesses that were affected back then: their services or products were NO LONGER USED, unlike the content output of Big Media. eg The fridge replaced the iceman, because they didn’t need him and similarly with the car and horse and cart. Their services weren’t continued to be used without payment, like we have now.
By that I mean the millions of unpaid downloads of any particular work. That every download is obviously *not* a lost sale (and that freeloading p2p can actually enhance conventional sales too) is clear to everyone except Big Media of course, but it must still be galling to see it going on and not get paid for it, when you don’t want to give it away for free.
Today, we have a “product” that everyone is using – Big Media content (yes, I know most of it is rubbish lol) yet people are consuming it by the bucketload without paying. You can see that Big Media would be pissed that there’s lots of demand, but (supposedly) less money coming in because of filesharing.
I bet they wouldn’t be suing people if their crap wasn’t selling AND no-one was downloading it.
Personally, I can’t stand the scumbags who run these businesses and many of the so-called artists are pretty low grade trashy people too (the constantly stoned and embarrassing herself Amy Winehouse anyone?), so I’m more than happy to see them go bust if they can’t adapt. Or horror! Have to work for a living like the rest of us – no more one hit wonders setting them up for life. Good.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
“…less money coming in because of filesharing.”
I’m glad you inserted “(supposedly)”. : )
But, this is probably the biggest misconception of all that is driving the MAFIAA to their eventual demise.
Sad, really…
…NOT!
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
The writing certainly seems on the wall for them now, doesn’t it? Feels really good.
I’ve always known what kind of unpleasant people made up Big Media and their extortionate behaviour over the past few years has starkly revealed their true nature. May they die a lingering death.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
ABC:
I’ll answer each point in turn:
“When making these comparisons, thereâs a big flaw, because there is one big difference between the situation now with Big Media and the businesses that were affected back then: their services or products were NO LONGER USED, unlike the content output of Big Media. eg The fridge replaced the iceman, because they didnât need him and similarly with the car and horse and cart. Their services werenât continued to be used without payment, like we have now.”
What exactly IS the RIAA’s “services and products?”
If you look at what copyright law was supposed to be, the stuff originally wouldn’t have been “theirs” beyond 14 years: that’s what the “public domain” is. So the first problem I see with your argument is that you’re implicitly accepting the notion of the perpetual “right” to control “their” product forever.
Do you read “classic” literature? I’m a big fan of the works of Charles Dickens. Since his stuff (I think) managed to enter the public domain, does THAT qualify as “taking without paying?” I’m honestly interested to see your response to this, because — even though you sound like you’re at least vaguely sympathetic to the RIAA, you haven’t completely swallowed their line.
“y that I mean the millions of unpaid downloads of any particular work. That every download is obviously *not* a lost sale (and that freeloading p2p can actually enhance conventional sales too) is clear to everyone except Big Media of course, but it must still be galling to see it going on and not get paid for it, when you donât want to give it away for free.”
Since you’ve already admitted that the downloads don’t equal “lost sales” (at least not in a one-to-one ratio), then I don’t see how it’s relevant if they find it “galling” or not. (Then again, they obviously find the notion of their copy”rights” ever expiring again pretty damn “galling” as well — hence the routine extensions every few years.)
I’m just curious here:
We used to have a guy who posted here often, under the handle “Sam I Am”.
One of the most telling statements he ever made was about how he’d taken pains to set it up so that his copyrights would automatically renew for as long as possible. His reasoning for this was that it would allow his daughter to “leverage” the copyrighted stuff as she saw fit, until — and this is exactly how he worded it — “expiration takes it from her.”
So tell me: do you regard the expiration of copyright as a form of “taking?”
To my way of thinking, how you answer this question gets to the heart of how you’ll react to the rest of this stuff.
“Today, we have a âproductâ that everyone is using – Big Media content (yes, I know most of it is rubbish lol) yet people are consuming it by the bucketload without paying. You can see that Big Media would be pissed that thereâs lots of demand, but (supposedly) less money coming in because of filesharing.”
But you’ve already noted the fact that the data about “lost sales” is extremely sketchy. Further, given that everything which IS now public domain was at one time somebody’s “product”, it’s understandable that they’d want to destroy the public domain, whether by restricting “fair use”, or getting their cronies in government to keep extending copy”right” terms endlessly.
As to the rest of it:
I’m pretty sure at least a significant proportion of folks will be more than willing to pay, IF it actually goes to the people who created the stuff. Looking at history, there was actually a rather nice income-stream potential back when mp3.com existed.
But the real problem with your FINAL statement, is that it accepts the notion that absent the RIAA and the perpetual monopolies they’re working toward, creative people won’t get paid. THIS is the biggest reason people still give the RIAA the benefit of the doubt.
I’m also pretty sure that people would “respect” things like copyright and patents more if they were reigned in — returned to something like they were SUPPOSED to be.
As a side-issue, do you regard people who write fanfiction as “taking without paying?”
After all — according to the bullshit the lobbyists have managed to force down our throats, every instance of fanfiction constitutes an “unauthorized derivative work”, and — presumably — represents “lost” revenue, in that the fanfic author obviously didn’t bother to “clear” the stuff first.
See, you can’t have it both ways, which is exactly what the RIAA wants:
They trot out the notion of “freeloading pirates” after decades of rigging the system so even those signed with them get screwed.
THEN they launch a massive propaganda campaign aimed at convincing us that a monopoly granted for a “limited time” is actually some kind of fundamental human right.
If “intellectual property” is a fundamental human right, then it’s expiration represents a form of expropriation.
In that case, companies entering a field at the expiration of patent are “Freeloading thieves.”
They need to get their story straight.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
@Henry,
“We used to have a guy who posted here often, under the handle âSam I Amâ…..
You would’nt happen to have the URL to that post would you, that guy wrote tons of FUD/hilarious (it was even funnier because I think he didnt believe half the stuff he was preaching) things so I think I missed that comment, sounds interesting though.