P2P Unite - spread the word

[E_tron]

I don't endorse copyright infringement, but i do denounce the RIAA and MPAA's actions against a technology that threatens the sovereign oligopoly of the entertainment industry. Please join me and others in a boycott against limited choices.

http://www.p2punite.net/

"The last week in April 2005 - 24th up until and including 30th - do not buy any entertainment products during that week to show that filesharers are consumers. Spread the word!"

[Prime95]

I think I'll buy some CDs and go to the movies twice that week. What is your complaint with RIAA and MPAA (there are some valid ones)? The web site you pointed to looks like it was written by typical "I have the right to movies and music for free" whiners.

The music and movie companies have the right to charge whatever they want for music and to distribute it in the mediums of their choice. You have the right to not buy the music if you think it is overpriced or too restrictive in its copy restrictions.

Also when you go to see a movie, it does not come with a money back guarantee. If you want to avoid seeing duds, listen to critic or trusted friend's reviews. Or don't go to the movies at all if you just can't stand the thought of being ripped off by a dud.

If these guys are so convinced their business model is superior, form a company, sign the artists, and make a killing. Sell your CDs for $5 after making them freely downloadable and freely shareable. And offer money back guarantees. Maybe that is the winning recipe - lots of luck!

[E_tron]

Originally Posted by E_tron

...sovereign oligopoly...

The Problem: Limited choices.

I denounce the actions of corporate America. Ever notice how almost every movie theater is controlled by the MPAA?
AMC, REGAL, CINEMARK. CARMIKE, GALAXY, the list goes on an on.

Because the MPAA controls the movie theaters, they control what we watch, the control prices, and they keep minority film developers off the screen, and out of the movie stores.

Same thing with music. A band in my home town signed with Columbia(a major RIAA contender) about a year ago. I told them that was the worst move they could make and their music will never see the light of day again. Ironically, my prediction has turned out right. Columbia has no interest in selling (even printing!!) their music and the band has no right to print the music themselves. The RIAA makes sure that our choices are limited.

Of course it's obvious that your the type of person that doesnt care or has submitted to their power. But, i'm sure that I’m not the only person here that sees what is going on.

EDIT:

Here is proof of the RIAA's oppression of the music industry:

http://www.magnatune.com/

Artists that are literally giving their music away, because it's not like they would make money signing with an RIAA label anyway.

[Prime95]

My basic point is that everyone is entitled to think whatever they want of the record and movie companies. However, many use their displeasure as an excuse to *steal* music and movies.

I don't see how magnatune proves there is oppression in the music industry. If the RIAA were suing magnatune to put them out of business, then I would agree with you.

Hey everyone, this is the "Soap Box" forum. E_tron and I cannot be the only ones with opinions. Don't be shy, chime in.

[Uncwilly]

An artist that I know (and those surrounding the cause) has a very simple view point:
Theft is theft.

Do + things to encourage the spread of alt.music (the non-commercial stuff).
Visit your local little record shop.
Buy small label stuff.
Visit your local club that supports indie's, when the artist is selling their CD's after, buy one for you and one to share with a friend.
Buy music on-line at place's like CD Baby or join Ron's Music Club.
Tell Columbia House, BMG, etc. what to do with their 'selection of the month'.
Go to your local DVD shop and rent the 'Had To Be Made' films, foreign films, and independants.
Visit your local 'art house' theatre, exclusively even.
Go to a local play.
Go to Amazon and rate all the indie stuff that you have well.

Money that shows up elsewhere is more noticed than money that just is never spent.

[JuanTutors]

I used to be a huge P2P supporter in terms of sharing what's isconsidered pirating. But then I thought about the way I look at musiccompared to the way the musician looks at music, and I applied that tothe things I do.

1. I like to draw. I would be willing to give my art to, say, myfriends, for free even if I'm drawing for money. However, I wouldn'twant anyone at all to go on the internet and print a copy of my artfrom their convnient poster sized printer sitting right in their room.

2. I teach and tutor. I have at times recorded sessions for disabledpeople. I get paid for this, and it's my job. I certainly don't wantcopies of what I've done being distributed in place of my servicesunless I was being compensated for it. Why? I just said, it's my job. Ilove teaching just like the musician probably loves doing music. I wantto help people out, so I decided to teach and do research instead ofbeing a stock broker. But it's still my job, and I WOULDN'T do this forfree because, on most days, I get hungry.... P.S. This is my favoritereason. The quality of teaching, just like the quality of music, wouldprobably go down if the teacher couldn't get their desired compensationfor their service.

[Mike_in_RI]

I've heard counter ads trying to sell the idea that the average worker for Columbia and BMG and other giants, is not getting med. benifits because of the money lost by P2P. But I would be willing to bet that the music and movie monsters never gave them bennifits to begin with if they don't have them by now. They show poor sally the secretary with her 3 kids when they mention the bennifits.

[clowns789]

Even with this "stealing" musicians can perform in concerts and "thiefs" would still go to them and musicians would still have more than enough money to operate in life.

Also, for every person the RIAA sues there are 250 people signing up for free music sites.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by clowns789

Even with this "stealing" musicians can perform in concerts

... that is, those able and willing to do concerts. Those whose music is studio-dependent and available only on recordings are just out of luck, I guess.

Similarly, poets able/willing to recite their poetry in public performances would fare better than those who are not (for whatever reason).

Why put stealing in quotes? One can pretend that calling stealing what it is isn't legitimate, but that just shows an unwillingness to directly confront the truth of the situation.

and "thiefs" would still go to them and musicians would still have more than enough money to operate in life.

Well, yes, most people in our prosperous society could have some money stolen from them and still have more than enough to operate in life.

Say ... you don't mind if I take US$50 from you, do you? After all, you would still have more than enough to operate in life.

Also, for every person the RIAA sues there are 250 people signing up for free music sites.

So ... ?

- - - - -

It seems to me that the real problem is that there's a basic incompatibility between the ease of duplication/distribution of digital data (such as modern music recordings) and the copyright system's basis in the former difficulty of duplicating and distributing physical manifestations of artistic/literary/musical works.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... that is, those able and willing to do concerts. Those whose music is studio-dependent and available only on recordings

... and those phsyically/medically unable to do concerts ...

are just out of luck, I guess.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Why put stealing in quotes? One can pretend that calling stealing what it is isn't legitimate, but that just shows an unwillingness to directly confront the truth of the situation.

One good reason is that in many jurisdictions, and certainly in the UK where I live, copyright infringement is not theft. It's an entirely different offence.

Theft is defined in the British legal code as "taking with intent to deprive permanently". With copyright infringement, the owner of the copyrighted work has not been deprived of that work as he/she/it still has the original work. I believe a similar definition of theft applies in the US but IANA(US)L.

It is for a similar reason that "joy-riding" (the taking of a car without the owner's consent) is very rarely prosecutable as theft and that specific laws have been created to cover the circumstances. I believe that in Australia "twoccing" has become a recognized word for the activity.

Paul