Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Taxpayer-Funded IP Police
Sydney Weidman writes "RIAA has given testimony before the House Appropriations Committee asking for more federal money for Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property investigation teams. You can find RIAA's side of the story here and a Cnet story is available as well. Apparently, RIAA is not satisfied with the current deployment of CHIP teams since they have been more involved in anti-hacking activities than in anti-piracy. My favourite Hilary Rosen quote: "Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music." I guess Rosen won't be happy until each and every pirate is charged with crimes against humanity and convicted by the International Court of Justice"
Hey, Mr. Taco, Sir, how about putting a permanent link on the main page that would allow anybody to quickly find their senator/congressman's contact information. Like maybe start being just a little proactive with some of these issues. If even 3% of /. readers actually DID something (call/write) I think it could make a *significant* difference. Weenies, kwhores, and goaters notwhithstanding, I have never seen a forum with a greater number of informed, intelligent, and articulate participants. Some of us probably just need a little kick in the ass to actually DO something other than bitch.
(yeah, I'm a hypocrite and karma whore. That doesn't mean I'm WRONG.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Harmful to Minors: Such laws seek to change Supreme Court standards for materials that are denied to children by lumping certain sound recordings into the "harmful to minors" category. This step makes it easier to ban sales to minors of certain objectionable material.
The RIAA is currently, or has recently, engaged in fighting these "harmful to minors" proposals in Washington, Florida, New York, Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, and on the federal level in the House and Senate.
ellimate fair use & promote free speech = more $$$
gotta love it..
what you don't seem to understand is that the only people making money off music are the members of the RIAA. I have no interest in putting food on the tables of lawyers, corporate swine and people pushing legislation that removes my rights to back up cd's, send mp3's to myself over my own network, or "media switch" the music I OWN that I move from CD to my MP3 player. Sure, illegal swapping should be stopped..but not by sniffing packets coming my system which could very easily be me transfering a few songs FROM MYSELF to MYSELF at work.
that's jsut the legal aspect. I have bought at LEAST 150 cd's based on hearing a song or 2 someone tossed my way via mp3's. for every pirate out there, there's a legitimate "mix tape" listener. If I like the cd an mp3 I stumble upon came from, I buy it. if I don't, I delete it.
until artists are making at least 25% of the profit from their cd's....screw the distributors.
The sad thing is, as long as congress keeps passing ridiculous laws like the DMCA, the RIAA will have an argument for the formation of these ridiculous law enforcement groups. The problem here is not that the RIAA wants it's own secret police, but that the laws exist that give those police a job to do.
However, when when the IP spooks start knocking on the doors of well meaning people everywhere demanding that they uninstall Kazaa or have their computer seized, maybe we can get the grass-roots support to get these laws repealed.
"Fortunately, we can use the information gathered from the 'hacking' intelligence to track down potential violators - because of their use of the Linux operating system." Did anyone else spot that part of the quote? Sounds like they will want to outlaw Linux next, as a deterrent to crime!
To be a little more clear, it's a lack of respect for intellectual property rights of others. Whatever your view on physical property rights, it should be obvious that ownership of abstract ideas is a very different thing, linked to physical property only by a tenuous analogy. An MP3 file, after all, is just a very large number -- is it really rational that some organization (or even some individual) can restrict other people from using that number?
The problems seem to happen when everyone starts believing the perfection of the analogy, and carrying over all sorts of baggage about the way things "should" be from their conceptions of physical property rights. The RIAA/MPAA love this, of course, since perpetuating this myth is what keeps them rolling in cash.
The reality is that there's nothing natural about intellectual "property" -- it's a convenient fiction created by society and enforced by the government. Convenient to a point, at least -- I'm not a wacked out radical here: I can see the advantages of limited IP laws to promote invention and arts. It's when that focus gets lost and the spurious analogy somehow takes moral precedence that I get annoyed.
You're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs). If anyone is losing money, it's the RIAA and ONLY the RIAA consortium. You do not hurt the artists. In fact, you can *really* help the artists out with online donation. Every time you download an MP3, give the arist 100% of the profits instead of the 0.01% that the RIAA gives them.
What the RIAA is pissed off about is that this technique which you call "stealing" gives power back to the artists. Several artists have attempted to distribute music via MP3, but the RIAA has smacked them down for doing so. The RIAA is pissed because they hate these so-called "theives", they're pissed because their business model is becoming outdated. To combat that, they want to make the government freeze-frame innovation.
Wake up. This greedy group of companies are the real theives. They seize ownership of the work of artists, and then pay them shit for it. Let's fight those bastards by downloading MP3's like crazy, and then giving the artists the money directly. Simple! It's cheaper for you, and more profitable for the musicians! What more do you want?
Why bother.
RIAA Propoganda: The Cost Of A CD
Lifted:
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
That's why it costs $18 for a CD instead of $1.50? Right.....
That is so lame.
Software Wars
I'd be the last one to say I agree with the current setup of copyright laws, but to say that the government has no responsibility in enforcing the property rights of people is ludicrous. Just think if they did the same for trespassing, burglary or auto-theft. The people do have an interest in the government protecting their rights. That's what allows us to avoid vigilantism.
I guess my age is showing here (I'm 29), but in some ways I see the RIAA's point. No I don't support federal "shock troops" breaking down your dorm door to take your pirated CDs. But, it appears that we have a whole generation of college-age people who have become used to paying $0.00 for their music. My brother-in-law is 19, and he hasn't purchased a CD in three years. Sure when you look at the micro level, what difference is it to Sony Music if a college sophomore is burning CDs at 3:00 am in South Bend or wherever. But at the macro level, this all adds up, and IMO not just for the huge labels but for the individual artists as well. I'm an amateur musician but if I had an album on the market, I think I would be interested in making enough money to continue a recording career. If you folks who pirate music are so interested in these artists and their work, why can't you support them? Where, exactly, do you think their royalty payments come from? I purchase my CDs willingly because I know I'm helping these people continue their careers. The bottom line for me is, would I be willing to shoplift from Tower rather than pay? No, and in my mind, copying pirated music is the same thing. Sure its accessible and easy to do, but that doesn't make it right. Or maybe I'm just old, after all I was buying vinyl until the last store in town stopped carrying it.
8 bit computing - It may be 2007 out there, but it's 1983 in here!!
I'm apparently in the minority. A college student who doesn't listen to music, doesn't buy Cd's and doesn't download MP3's. I believe my position gives me a different perspective on this issue.
The fact is, music is too expensive for my tastes. I'm a cheap bastard but an honorable one and I just cannot justify spending 20 bucks on a CD unless I like every song on it. Most Cd's just aren't that good.
As for the RIAA, I think they are greedy corporate types, but the world is filled with them and America wouldn't be what it is without them. I do oppose taxpayer funded control of their IP rights because, because I believe that the MP3 trade actually helps CD sales and I don't want my tax dollars going to something I care nothing about.
I also dislike the "big brother" side of having more people watching my online activities (not that I do anything illegal).
Finally, if the RIAA did manage to destroy all music sharing, I think things the industry would split. On one side would be all the corporate backed monsters who rely on the tours to rake in most of the money. On the other side would be so called independents (who'd probably get together in some fashion) to start their own model of business.
Not that I care much about what happens, but I think it will work itself out in the end either way.
I see no problem with having tougher enforcement of intellectual property rights - so long as those property rights are themselves justifiable. If you think that there should be at least some IP rights, you ought to accept that the government has some obligation to take care of the enforcement of those rights. The real problem here is not that the RIAA wants IP rights enforced, but that they are demanding rights which are unjustifiable.
Of course there is a matter of priority. If your car gets stolen then chances are the police will do very little about it. I see no reason for the police to go to greater lengths to protect the IP rights of corportations than they do to protect the real property rights of individual citizens.
BTW, the stuff about piracy being a crime against us all is true enough, but applies equally to any other kind of theft. Shop lifting raises prices. Burglary raises insurance rates. Any kind of theft will increase the demand for, and expenditure on, law enforecement and private security. So the claim that there is something especially bad about piracy is BS.
...stop buying music, robbing the RIAA of the capital they need to buy politicians? I buy only used CDs and music I can get online from people that are in no way associated with the RIAA. It's all legit, I get what I want, and the labels don't get a penny. Win-win.
Wrong. An MP3 is encoded audio. Audio can come from many sources. I listen to many artists whose music I obtained directly, via MP3. No CD was involved. And it doesn't have to be MP3 either, of course.
Digital audio formats are not an added step after purchasing a CD, they are direct competitors to CDs, for doing the work of music distribution.
First of all: Most of the money from sales of music goes to marketing of music. This is because the music listening public are too stupid and sheepish to be immune from being convinced to buy whatever crap BMG wants to sell. This marketing machine payed for by record companies does more to stifle the creation of music than CD pirates ever could. Since local bands could never spend so much to convince the public to buy their stuff, it takes a back seat to the stuff on MTV. Most of the value of the music IP that the RIIA is worried about is not in the music itself but in the marketing investment that the record company has made in pushing the music. For example: Britanny Spears mad diddly off her first album, but could command huge $$ for another one since the record company had already invested mega $$ in marketing her.
Is this maketing a service? Should we thank the record companies for bringing us music we might not otherwise know about? I think not. I think that especially with the internet, bands can show the world what they've got easily, and people can find it on their own. In this wired age record companies who once were the only way to distribute music find that they no longer serve a useful purpose and are nothing more than leaches on society. They control what is on the radio, so that's what I hear, and that's all I know to buy. Without them the radio would play other stuff by artists who have placed their stuff on the internet for free, and who would be happy if I listened so I would want to go to one of their concerts. Music would continue to be created even if there were no such thing as record companies. Maybe artists would not get rich by leveraging the record company's marketing investment, but maybe lesser known artists would make a better living if they could get a little airplay.
Second of all: Do we want an IP police to tell us what we are allowed to think without paying a fee?
Do you think the cops can shut down p2p file trading of copyrighted material without snooping on everything that is traded on p2p? If the FBI can't stop illegal IP traffic on it's budget and using it's existing powers, then it still has use in stopping kidnappers and terrorists, in fact that 'failure' doesn't tarnish the public's image of the FBI because most people who want music and would rather wait for it to download than pay the money for it at the store download it guiltlessly, and don't want the FBI to stop them.
But if there is a special agency who's only purpose is to stop illegal IP trading, they will called before congress if their agency is innefectual, and they will explain that the task is impossible, and that to enforce the law they need an SSSCA type law, and that Freenet should be banned, and that so should most p2p, and gpl software too.
I would be willing to give up the notion of copyright and the patent systems altogether. What moral right does someone who creates an artifact that represents an idea to the very eternal notion itself? They should own only the artifact itself. Why should we subsidise the creation of such artifacts by granting copyright? I don't think the value of what is created in that way warrants the subsidy since the material created is mostly created with the express purpose of making $$ and not with enriching my life. Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind? If patents are granted to compete with other countries then maybe we should stop the war and sign a peace treaty outlawing patents.
Eat at Joe's.
First of all, you are absolutely correct about the RIAA only looking out for their OWN protection. They don't give a dåm about the artists. But it's sickening that you think that their greed is a justifiable cause to steal profits from them.
I Like your idea about paying the artists directly - but you don't realize that most record labels OWN the rights to the profit on that music, and (even if people did pay the artists directly) they would have complete legal rights to the money you send them. In fact, the artist could be sued for everything they own if it was ever found out. Most record labels are pure evil, and have already (through the use of lawyers) though out every way that an artist can beat the system.
Independent artists are the way to go such as found at: http://www.audiokingdom.com The only reason they are not popular is because they don't have a billion-dollar marketing machine behind them to brain-wash everyone into wanting their music. If you REALLY want to help the music industry, turn off your radios and your tv's and start supporting your local artists instead of the ones that record labels brainwash you into supporting!
ALSO: you are completely full of shït if you actually believe that downloading an MP3 (one that isn't 'released' by the artist) is not stealing. It certainly IS stealing - there is no way to get over that fact.
Your pathetic rhetoric about 'electrons and such' is revolting! How can you justify your actions when you already know how little artists make from labels, and how they are trapped into contracts? I can understand downloading songs that are not available on the shelves, or live recordings, and stuff that you can't order from a catalog, but we all know that the majority of the piracy that occurs is music that is available on the shelves!
C'mon people: get a job a buy the friggin CD! Do you think that artists actually spend hours upon hours working hard to make an album just so that some little punk can download their music on the web? If they didn't think they could make a living producing music, most of them would be flipping burgers at Denny's or driving busses for a living. When you download an MP3 (or copy a friends CD) rather than buy the CD, you are completely undermining the careers of these musicians.
If an artist wants to support the MP3 movement by releasing their songs that's fine. Download to your hearts content. Many respectable artists such as Chuck-D have a fantastic vision for music - but it's not a reality yet. Just because one artist says it's ok, it does not mean that they are giving you permission to download everyone elses music.
If you even had an ounce of creativity in your blood, you'd soon realize that copying ANYTHING that is copyrited is determental to the dream that people can make a living doing what they love.
PS: This exact same concept applies to programmers and 'big-bad software companies'
"Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music."
:-)
That cracked me up! I guess everyone feels there is a humanitarian need for paying for music in this world. That's like coal miners saying oil and natural gas are bad for everone because there isn't enough coal mines opening up anymore. The afflicted parties and everyone are usually quite at odds with each other.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
The 'law' of supply and demand gets broken when the providers of the supply collude, and agree on pricing.
This is why there are anti-trust laws. The fact that CDs are as expensive as DVDs is a symptom of the record companies illegal control of the industry.
rbb
(Please insert 'alleged' above wherever needed.)