Per osOpinion.com...

Quote:Until now, the battle between the music industry and file swappers has been pretty contained: Some court cases, usually won by the music industry, some Web site defacements, usually of the music industry's official site. Tempers flared, but no shots were fired.

But things have turned nasty.

The story broke recently: The music industry is "quietly financing" development of software that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, reported The New York Times.

:cuss:

What are the music execs thinking? The industry has tried plenty of bad ideas in its efforts to battle file swapping, but with this one it's finally happened: It has revealed an urge to self-destruct.

The music industry has inched toward this cliff for some time. Since last summer, Overpeer -- an industrial-strength spoofing company -- has been up and running. Backed by large music industry clients, Overpeer floods P2P networks with bogus files.

In my book, Overpeer is fair play. Spoofing isn't sabotage, it's merely inconvenience. If swappers can post whatever they want, so can the music industry.

To understand why the music industry is considering a dangerous step past Overpeer, look no further than a recent court ruling. For the first time, a judge ruled that P2P is legal -- a crushing blow to the music industry. No wonder the industry is feeling desperate.

Sabotaging someone's computer because they've downloaded a music file gets into murky moral territory. If someone downloads an Eminem MP3 -- which already made the industry millions -- should they have their $1,500 PC incapacitated or worse? The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

But forget the moral concerns. The practical concerns of music industry PC sabotage are what make this a disaster.

In an industry driven by publicity and image, the negative backlash of the first few disabled PCs would be larger than Avril Lavigne's royalties. Sites would be defaced. Record stores would be avoided. P2P sites would have another rallying cry. The big five record label heads would once again be painted as evil corporate titans.

Instead of sabotaging PCs, the industry needs to wake up and play to its strengths: It can kill with kindness. Its sad little legal download sites, like Pressplay and MusicNet, are too tied up with rules. The lumbering music giants still don't offer viable alternatives to Grokster and KaZaa.

The solution, as it so often is in the tech space, is to imitate Apple. The company's iTunes Music Store has emerged overnight as the model to beat. Pay 99 cents, buy what you want, do what you want with the files within reason. In its first week, the iTunes service sold more than a million tunes.

I'm assuming there are nervous meetings among music industry executives. They'll need to stop reviewing their new sabotage software to investigate this sudden success. "You mean we could be making money instead of sabotaging computers?"

When in doubt, imitate Apple. It worked for Microsoft in the '80s. It can work for the music industry today.

<a href='http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/21489.html' target='_blank'>http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/21489.html</a>

JJ, I really dont care about downloading music, so I dont have a dog in this fight. My question to anyone who downloads music is this:

You are an inventor. You have created something worth a great deal to you, and is a very desired product to the public at large. You sell it on the internet. You charge someone $10.00 to download it to their computer. Someone figures a way to bypass the fee, and lets everyone know about it. You lose millions. What would your reaction be?

My answer to that is ~ whatever. If we were not raped to pay $15-20 a CD for one song you like and the rest you may not like then I probably would not download music.

Also, downloading music has not stopped me from buy CD's. Period. Now I am sure some total computer junkies download entire CD's all the time and burn them but I do not. In fact, I have actually bought some CD's I may not have because I was able to check out other music by an artist.

I would gladly pay 99cents a song to be able to have a CD full of just songs I wanted.

It is a tough battle. I do not think it is fair to rip people off and I don't think Eminem is hurtin' much because of downloaded music....

rickheel Wrote:JJ, I really dont care about downloading music, so I dont have a dog in this fight. My question to anyone who downloads music is this:

You are an inventor. You have created something worth a great deal to you, and is a very desired product to the public at large. You sell it on the internet. You charge someone $10.00 to download it to their computer. Someone figures a way to bypass the fee, and lets everyone know about it. You lose millions. What would your reaction be?

Let's give a more realistic scenario.

You sell it to the RIAA because it's your only way to make it to the public. the RIAA sells it for $15. Of each of your product sold... you see $0.10. The RIAA takes the other $14.90. After awhile - people bypass the fee and share this product, but some continue to buy it legit, making the RIAA a fortune... and you a shmuck.

Who's the real culprit?

P.S. - Overpeer cannot do crap to stop IRC trading.

And congrats to Overpeer for rocketing up the list of priorities on hacker's checklist.

P.P.S. - I have well over a week of music on my computer. Bite me RIAA.

When artists sign music contracts, I believe, they are set at a price and that any money made off of sales goes to the recording studio. And if they send stuff that damages our computers then isn't that also against the law?