Piracy, DRM, and Mini D

[moot]

Why play with words?  P2P allows you to get for free what you're supposed to pay for.

I do think increasing DRMs will turn most people against the RIAA, whether they're concerned or not, just as Starforce and RealPlayer did before them.
DRM is a pain in the bellybutton tit for tat reply from the RIAA & Co to copyright infringement.
People will follow the path of least resistance and keep taking valuable media for free as long as they can.

[LePaul]

Boy the way some folks split hairs......they should be hairdressers.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Sundowner
Umm.. excuse me, but I can't remember ever seeing anyone accosted by the RIAA for DOWNLOADING music.

I think it's only "illegal" if you  SHARE/DISTRIBUTE copyrighted material.(Making available for other users to download from you)

Anyone have a link showing where the RIAA filed against someone for DOWNLOADING only?

I could easily be mistaken on this point, if so I stand corrected ahead of time.

Regards,
Sun

From what I remember, the RIAA has gone after people who did massive amounts of downloads.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Beej,

Supergrass
Oasis
and many other's


I'll talk to you on squad when I see you next.

Ackputh! Almost makes me miss...Asia:huh

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by moot
Why play with words?  P2P allows you to get for free what you're supposed to pay for.

I do think increasing DRMs will turn most people against the RIAA, whether they're concerned or not, just as Starforce and RealPlayer did before them.
DRM is a pain in the bellybutton tit for tat reply from the RIAA & Co to copyright infringement.
People will follow the path of least resistance and keep taking valuable media for free as long as they can.

iTunes flies in the face of that theory though. For years people wanted downloadable music and iTunes Store was the first significant option (most others only offered very limited selections). iTunes Store sells millions and millions of tracks. What cripples itunes is that you are 'officially' limited with what and where you play the music.

The path of leasth resistance could be legal. P2P has its danger, legal and otherwise. If the RIAA made a legal option easy, flexible, and fair (ie not priced to support their drug habits) p2p would trickle off to all but a hardcore (who probably couldn't afford the music anyway).

[JB88]

Originally posted by bj229r
Ackputh! Almost makes me miss...Asia:huh

you're leaving now...

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Vulcan My point is DRM is only encouraging people to copy their music/movies from other sources. The article I linked to affirms that.

You like this scenario because it affirms your belief. You dismiss the rest that don't. I understand. This is the act of an apologist, not someone seriously thinking things through.

This person was forced into thievery by evil DRM. He had no other options. This is the ONLY result of DRM.

Answer honestly mini d, as DRM increases do you think piracy will decrease?

You cannot prevent piracy of anything that has already been released. I think DRM will go a great ways in preventing it for things that will be released with DRM encoding in place.

I liken it to the satellite TV industry and "black boxes". The encoding and frequent changes of keying went a great ways to reduce the praticality of buying a black box. Eventually, most digital media will be the same way. It's probably still capable of being "intercepted", but it's too damn hard for most to give it a shot.

[moot]

I'd rather have ISPs tracking applications known to trade illegally then have to deal with DRMs.  DRMs are more invasive.

Vulcan, I'm not sure what you mean.
Does iTunes really outweigh P2P in traffic?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by moot
People will follow the path of least resistance and keep taking valuable media for free as long as they can.

Do you mean with the "valuable media" the bytes that can be copied at no cost?

A few studies have shown that P2P has actually acted as an advertising media and therefore increased the sales. The negative effects of P2P are grossly over estimated. It is not the end of the world or even the end of the sales.

There are three kinds of pirates: 1) Those who could hardly afford to buy music, 2) Those who download music to try and who spends alot of money in music otherwise, 3) Those who could afford to buy music, but pirates everything regardless.

The first group mostly consists of teenagers, who are probably the largest single group using P2P. The second group is the adults, the second largest group using P2P. The third group is a minority.

Do you think that the moneyless teenagers are causing a loss of profit with their use of P2P? What money was lost, when there was nothing to begin with? Where would they have got the money to buy the music they've downloaded? It doesn't make any difference in profit whether they've downloaded music or not, they wouldn't add to the profit eitherway.

Radio didn't kill the industry, TV didn't kill the industry, VHS didn't kill the industry. Each of the three technologies were widely resisted by the industries that were afraid of the technology bringing them down.

Radio broadcasts music for FREE to the listeners. Oh my god, that must've meant the end of music sales. Wait..  they're still selling music and quite well in fact. Radio actually boosted the sales as a source of marketing! People are actually buying music that they've heard for free?! Nuts!

TV was the dreaded doomsday for movie theaters. Instead a whole new branch of industry was created and even the movie theaters didn't dissapear for good. Even the music industry began to utilize TV.

VHS was the biggest satan of all. Who would buy a movie or go to movies when they could simply copy a movie from a friend? Wrong once again. The to-be-doomed movie industry increased their profits with the VHS sales. Good for them they didn't succeed in banning the technology.

The entertainment industry is time after time shooting at their own foot, but never learning from their mistakes. Too bad darwinism doesn't apply to the industry.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Mini D
I liken it to the satellite TV industry and "black boxes". The encoding and frequent changes of keying went a great ways to reduce the praticality of buying a black box. Eventually, most digital media will be the same way. It's probably still capable of being "intercepted", but it's too damn hard for most to give it a shot.

If you look at Europe there is a reasonable base Satellite piracy. However competitive pricing and services ensure that has not gone mainstream.

As for digital media being 'intercepted'... well all it takes is one person to crack the code. Thats the whole thing with p2p, its a viral medium. HD DVDs already been broken. Making it harder to break only helps if you can isolate the spread of the broken copies, from my point of view p2p now envelopes more than digital networking (ie sneakernet via ipods).

Originally posted by moot
I'd rather have ISPs tracking applications known to trade illegally then have to deal with DRMs. DRMs are more invasive.

Vulcan, I'm not sure what you mean.
Does iTunes really outweigh P2P in traffic?
[/B]

moot tracking applications is fairly expensive and difficult to do. For a decent L7 box that will track encrypted torrents traffic you are looking at bout US$200k plus annuals per 5Gbps of traffic, not including reporting boxes to compile historical data, nor management or installation of said box.

No itunes doesn't outweight p2p. But it is popular, especially given its limited market (basically ipod users). If itunes were to push out to non-ipod players I'm sure there'd be a fairly sizeable increase in sales as well.

[moot]

I don't argue that P2P and similar ploys will destroy the market, I'm saying once you give people something for free, they'll tend to keep expecting it for free, especially if it's something they are fond of.

What I would argue, is that P2P is illicit, and any way you spin it, it is in fact as illicit as contraband game copies in Russia, etc.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by moot
I don't argue that P2P and similar ploys will destroy the market, I'm saying once you give people something for free, they'll tend to keep expecting it for free, especially if it's something they are fond of.

Those were the fears with radio and C- and VHS-casettes. People could have expected entertainment for free since the 70's, but they don't.

I see P2P as the future, like VHS was in the 80's. You can fight it with all your might, but resistance will be futile and the world will be assimilated. The world will go on and turn to oppose some other technology while today's opposed technology will be the standard of the day.

[moot]

I'm not implying that. I'm saying P2P is stealing, and people will keep doing it despite that, because it's anonymous and unlikely they'll get caught.

P2P may be the future, but not in its present illicit flavor.

[Vulcan]

I disagree, with both of you. I hate p2p, and never use it. And have never used it  (suck on that mini d    ).

P2P is a strain on the network, its also a 'dirty' source.

I see more stuff being swapped via portable media devices than I do on P2P. And before you say it, a lot of that stuff being swapped was not sourced from p2p.

[moot]

I said may, not is..  All I know for sure is that I want no DRM in my files.  And that the RIAA should get a sock in it.

Vulcan, I only saw your previous reply now - I think iTunes' DRMs are already enough of a complication for any equal competitor minus the DRMs to easily take iTunes' place in the market.
I only once looked at their online store, and saw that many albums I was looking for weren't there, and that what was there could be had without DRMs, at lower compressions, and sometimes cheaper, elswhere.
It looked like they were milking the mainstream hits, and the users who just didn't know any better.

It's a shame about encrypted traffic being that expensive to monitor.. I didn't know it was like that. It does change the big picture of things, thanks for the info.