

RIAA Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Troubles - adeelarshad82
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373273,00.asp

======
jacquesm
PCmag is just as disingenuous here as the RIAA, which is not saying much good
about them.

Their stance should be: we report what our readers want to read and what sells
ads, that you, the RIAA are inconvenienced by this is tough but so be it.
Reporting this is not illegal.

And while we're at it screwing artists out of the royalties legally due to
them _is_ illegal and the RIAA does it every chance they get and good luck
fighting them in court to get a win before your estate takes over.

Bits can - and will - be copied, as the price of transporting and storing bits
approaches zero the ease with which this will happen will rapidly approach a
point at which any kind of value directly associated with copying bits is
going to be seen as ridiculous. The business-models will change, and I'm
thinking convenience is going to be a much bigger driver than scarcity ever
was. The music industry may end up on top of this after all, if they start
making up for lost time.

~~~
bigiain
That made me think...

The upper end of estimates about the number of albums released per year by
"the recording industry" seems to be around 35,000:

[http://www.mahalo.com/answers/how-many-albums-are-
released-p...](http://www.mahalo.com/answers/how-many-albums-are-released-per-
year-were-released-last-year-in-the-united-states) (and god I feel dirty
linking to mahalo!)

That seems high at ~100 albums per day, but its perhaps plausible worldwide.
(note too that this means it'd take you 3 or 4 years to listen to a years
worth of new music)

A quick poke at my iTunes library reveals "an album" to require on average
between 50 and 100 meg - call it 75 meg.

That means the entire music industries output is somewhere around 2.5TB/year -
that's, what, ~$150 worth of disk space? Call it $300 if you want to back it
all up.

I guess when you business model is based on a product which people can steal
every single thing you sell, and store it for under a buck a day, random
speculative lawsuits might be a sensible "pivot"...

(another interesting random observation - 2.5TB/year probably means the entire
worlds published recorded music output is less that 100TB compressed, perhaps
only 500TB @ raw CD bitrates. Even uncompressed that _barely_ gets you out of
the second lowest Amazon S3 pricing tier.)

~~~
robryan
Makes you think then how small then would the worlds entire book output in
history, can't find anything on it from a quick Google search.

------
draebek
> The story isn't encouraging or discouraging anything. That's not our role.
> PCMag's job is to cover all aspects of technology, which includes the
> products, services and activities that some groups and individuals might
> deem objectionable. We covered these Limewire alternatives because we knew
> they would be of interest to our readers.

Let me be clear: I support "PCMag's" right to write an article about
alternatives to Limewire. It should not be a crime to link to software just
because that software can be used to break laws.

That said, my guess is that the vast majority of content available through
Limewire is copyrighted and being distributed without permission. Alternatives
to Limewire are "of interest to your readers" because they're looking for new
places to download this copyrighted content. In my experience the average
person running Limewire almost certainly needs the help of more experienced
people--like technical journalists--to find good alternatives to Limewire. So
it seems to me that PCMag is providing a valuable service to many people who
would like to download copyrighted content.

Sure, if PCMag didn't write an article about "alternatives to Limewire,"
someone else would (albeit maybe someone with different interests in mind, or
someone with worse SEO skills). Sure, when presented with a letter like this I
can see why they choose to try and get out in front of this issue. Sure, there
may be legal implications to reacting in any other way than the way they did.
Nonetheless I think their statement offends my sense of frankness and honesty.

~~~
stoney
_Alternatives to Limewire are "of interest to your readers" because they're
looking for new places to download this copyrighted content._

Limewire and alternatives are of interest to me yet I have no interest in
downloading any content via those services. Why am I interested in Limewire
and friends? Partly because I like to know what's going on in the tech world
and partly because I'm interested in what other people are up to. But mostly
because I find the ongoing fight between the RIAA and co and the pirates
massively interesting. In what other industry does a leading industry body
actively harass potential customers in what appears from the outside to be a
losing battle?

I'm pretty sure that the people looking for alternatives don't need to read PC
Mag to find them.

------
jawee
I think they have a point. When I was unexperienced in the ways of technology
and new to things, about 6 years ago probably (my time may be off), I tried
Limewire because I saw it in a reputable print publication. (note: I was young
at the time as I am currently a high school student)

I had tried to download some music with Walmart's new MP3 site, which was a
mess. I could never get the 10 songs or so I downloaded and paid for to play
on my Windows 98 PC, despite downloading what they recommended (I don't think
the version of Windows Media Player they suggested worked on my PC). I still
wanted music to play on my Sony CLIE (which couldn't play it either)... and my
friend showed me a computer magazine talking about Limewire. It said something
about it being safe and legal, as long as you didn't use it illegally. I
didn't consider the implications so I downloaded it and tried it.. and quickly
found a bunch of music. I actually owned a lot of it, but not all of it. The
point is, I was underinformed and since there wasn't much of a warning in the
magazine I considered reputable, I didn't think I was doing anything illegal.

When you look at the target audience of a simple magazine like PC Magazine, I
see why the RIAA would be alarmed. I'm not saying this should be illegal to
publish or that PC Magazine is necessarily at fault, but I don't think the
RIAA is too far off-base either.

------
robryan
One area where they really need to better embrace digital technology is with
TV shows. There are many people around the world that would happily pay for or
watch shows through services like hulu. TV networks though would rather sell
traditional rights to overseas networks to show whenever they see fit.

The problem is though in a connected world if your not watching the TV show
the same day it is aired in America you won't be able to follow online
conversation and the chances are before it's finally aired someone would have
let slip the premise or twist so your no longer surprised.

This just means they lose the chance to make anything off big overseas fans
when a show is first aired because they will all be downloading it.

------
nigelsampson
Where does it end?

Linking to copyrighted content is "bad" according to the RIAA, discussing and
linking to tools like Limewire is now a problem for them. When will linking to
articles about software piracy and the tools become an issue?

~~~
thwarted
_When will linking to articles about software piracy and the tools become an
issue?_

Right before _talking_ about linking to articles about software and tools that
enable piracy becomes an issue.

------
flyt
one dying industry gets angry at another dying industry, film at 11 (on
youtube)

------
epochwolf
> It's time for these music execs to pull their collective heads out of the
> sand and fully acknowledge and accept all the ways their industry has
> changed.

Don't see this happening any time soon. As long as piracy is easier than
purchasing (and viewing) content it will happen at a massive scale.

~~~
mattmanser
Tis only a matter of time before laws start getting passed, ISPs are forced to
monitor and people start getting cut-off/fined.

I'm not arguing for that position, but that's the way it's going. So any time
soon could be sooner than you think.

As for the article, what a load of nonsense, 'hey use these instead' article
is quite obviously advocating piracy, whichever way they try and spin it,
disclaimer or not. The disclaimer:

 _All of these services should be used for legal downloads, of course_

There is no sane person in the world that believes that a torrent site's
primary purpose is for legal downloads.

~~~
cryptoz
> There is no sane person in the world that believes that a torrent site's
> primary purpose is for legal downloads.

You cannot say that. That's absurd. There are _tons_ of torrent sites with
legal content, and whose primary purpose is the sharing of legal content. For
example <http://www.clearbits.net>.

> Tis only a matter of time before laws start getting passed, ISPs are forced
> to monitor and people start getting cut-off/fined.

Bypassing whatever ISPs put in place will likely still be easier than
purchasing, especially given that pirated content typically has a higher
quality than paid content. It's a double-whammy: paying for DVDs or CDs forces
you to see ads (occasionally telling you not to pirate!), in some cases
download DRMed, locked content, and usually at a lower bitrate than the
pirated options.

Not only is it easier to pirate, but you usually end up with a higher-quality
and less annoying product.

Edit: The solution to all of this is for the content distributors to realize
and understand the situation. If they put all the high-quality content online
and provide direct, fast downloads (without treating me like a criminal!) then
the world will change and most people will buy content...I think.

~~~
mattmanser
I can say that, the majority of torrents used in the world are films and
songs. Any other claim is truly preposterous.

I have no idea why you think otherwise, who do you think torrents?

It's a totally strange position to take. I do not understand it.

On the other hand I totally agree with you and the poster above me about the
ease, quality (in terms of advert and stupid menu-less content) and speed on
getting new content, it's absurd we're in a situation where getting illegal
content is quicker and easier than getting legal content. But that's another
matter.

~~~
steveklabnik
I'd imagine that World of Warcraft (and StarCraft II) updates account for just
as much bandwidth via BitTorrent as do 'illegal downloads'...

------
MortenK
I certainly have no love for the RIAA, or the horrible DRM methods they
peddle. They are wrong on so many levels, and is fighting something they
should instead be embracing.

But PC Mag wrote (like many others) a very thorough guide to LimeWire
alternatives. Everyone, and most certainly PC Mag, knows what people use these
tools for. Writing the comparison post is not illegal, they are in their full
right to it. But to write this very indignant piece, claiming complete
neutrality and "we cover it because we must" / free speech kind of argument,
is over the top. The comparison post was not any kind of insightful coverage,
or debating post. It was a cheap grab for eyeballs.

------
sili
There is one thing that I can't wrap my mind around in the whole demise of the
recording industry. I would expect labels' execs to be smart and clear minded
people, just by virtue of obtaining their positions and taking their companies
to international sizes. I would understand if they don't accept that the game
is changing for a while and than have to catch up with the market, but to deny
it for a decade to the point that their bottom lines are hurting to become so
desperate as to lash out on any every passing thing. That does not add up.

~~~
msg
The execs do know. They just don't have options that will make as much money
for their shareholders. So instead they fight a slow rearguard action.

Their time is passing. But for how long? Times X billion dollars per year.

~~~
cookiecaper
If they were smart this all would have been moot a long time ago. They would
start a subscription-based private tracker, add a URL handler so that things
opened in the torrent program automatically, and everything would have been
fine and nice and great and they'd be making much more money.

Instead of doing this and making pirate methods obscure, they insist on
wasting everyone's time and money by implementing DRM schemes that cause
incompatibilities, only to be broken a short while later, and suing people,
which ultimately just gives the pirate sources more time to grow and more
media exposure, especially when they sue and/or force prosecution of these
pirate sources directly instead of just pursuing average filesharers, a la The
Pirate Bay.

