Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 10 comments on File-Sharing Friction

  1. The development of Sweden’s VS “I dont remember what company” case, has triggered lots of discussion on the subject internationally but especially in Europe.
    I think that if they go down (which they claim to be impossible) it will cause a trickle effect that little by little will take away parts of our most basic freedoms.

  2. The music industry had a chance to embrace new technologies and create something like Napster or Oink on their own, ushering in the next generation of digital recording and digital audio files; however they saw this whole “internet thing” as a threat and tried to stifle innovation and evolution- which never has worked…ever. The Record labels are crashing and dying because of their own ignorance and close-mindedness. A wise man once said, “desperation is a stinky cologne”, and the RIAA is bathing in that stuff, because they really STINK.

  3. The sharing habit and dynamics of “content consuming” people and the social phenomenon are difficult to understand. The suggestion is to keep doing whatever you like to do as long as you don’t get sued by entities like RIAA or MPAA who makes this practice a profitable business model. This could mean that you abide by the copyright law, or you sneak around the corner. Fortunately, at least the “content producing” part of the equation is beginning to take shape.

    Some musicians, producers or artists simply don’t care so much about profit, and they just would like to reach out to as many people as they can. These are typically talents who have not enjoyed commercial success yet, but they have other means to support themselves. It was traditionally expensive to build the media distribution network (radio/TV stations, retail stores, etc.), and the network was available only to a few selected talents. The Internet makes it available to any content producers to cheaply distribute their creations.

    Eventually, most talents want to reap commercial success if they make it, so the question is, would the use of Internet as distribution medium forfeit their chance to make money? Fortunately, there are labels like Magnatune who have more Internet-friendly terms and does not prevent the musician from making money. YouTube is also sharing advertising profit with video makers. We now have more Internet-savvy middleman helping creative talents keep the cake and eat it.

    At least, considering the terms of these new distributors, it is much easier to bypass aggressive middleman represented by RIAA and MPAA. Under the new terms, you get to abide by the copyright law and hopefully also satisfy your sharing habits.

    As long as both content producers and content consumers choose the middleman wisely, we wouldn’t have the abusive copyright litigation problems we see today.

  4. The expert witness said that 1/1000 will be falsely accused. Although this may be unnerving because it’s not 100% certainty, 99.9% certainty is far above the more likely than not burden in civil court. Out of all the things to criticize the RIAA about, I don’t think this is one of them.

    Regardless, I think the real problem is that the RIAA is using bully tactics so that these things never get to court at all. No poor college student is going to find a lawyer and spend tens of thousands of dollars defending a case in court when he can get out of it completely for $6,000.

    Regarding universities being put in a weird position, why should universities be in position of being responsible for students by providing internet access? Why don’t universities do the same thing apartment complexes do for their dorms- contract with a private company to wire the building, and then have the students pay for internet plans a la carte? This way it’s between the RIAA, the students and the ISP?

    – Nick from Avvo

  5. Well, I suppose this is all in the past now that the RIAA has announced they’re no longer using lawsuits as a copyright defense strategy. I have to wonder what took them so long to reach the conclusion, and why now, of all times, did they finally decide their time and money are best spent elsewhere. Was it bad publicity? Mounting resistance from those falsely accused? Who knows, but as we advance into the digital age, this period of RIAA mass suing will probably be viewed as a bizarre act of defiance by a group unwilling to accept that times have changed. It still remains to be seen whether they’re find a business model that will allow them to survive.

    San Francisco personal injury lawyer

  6. Just to update, the RIAA has successfully sued that Minneapolis woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset. She was accused of illegally downloading music and was found guilty of violating the copyrights on 24 songs and is liable for $1.92M or $80,000 per song The damages seem excessive. These songs could be bought, especially since those same 24 songs (by Gloria Estefan, Journey, Sheryl Crow, and Green Day, among others) can be had for under $25 on iTunes. There’s no way they’re ever going to get that ridiculous amount of money. As an injury attorney, it would be nice to get 1/3 of that amount.

Post a comment.

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