RIAA Headway Dwindling

JKnowledge writes "This article points to the fact that Yahoo! and various other ISPs are joining in Verizon's fight for the privacy of thier users. Perhaps this silly debacle in the rights of Anonymous Cowards will soon lose steam and sink into the rot that it rose from."

Comments

Invoke the Patriot Act

[NewtonsLaw]

Surely the RIAA will simply claim that terrorists are responsible for the piracy of their wares and, in the blink of an eye, Yahoo et all will be forced to hand over the information without the need for further proof.

America -- land of the free -- although perhaps not quite so free in a post Sept 11 world :-(

Re:Invoke the Patriot Act

[Flounder]

Is this sarcasm? Or are you just closer to the truth than you know?

Wrongo.

[Murdock037]

Don't think that these companies are fighting for the privacy of their users. The companies are fighting so that they don't have to take responsibility for what their users do.

It's in their own best interests to help out the little guy on this one, but don't assume everybody's motivations align so well.

Re:Wrongo.

[DrLudicrous]

Well, we have seen that people like Slashdotters can bitch all they want as individuals, and rant and rave, and even get the ACLU involved, but the courts and politicians have a deaf ear to what we say. They will, however, listen to big business. So maybe (for now) this is our only weapon against entities like the RIAA- give them a spoonful of their own medicine, in the form of litigation.

Re:Wrongo.

[Amazing Quantum Man]

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.

Re:Wrongo.

[jedidiah]

They don't really need to be on our side. The actions of the RIAA and MPAA affect companies just as severely as they do individuals. Just like individuals, companies need to become more aware of the potential negative impact of "media mogul" laws.

While it is true that no corp will ever really be our ally, we can trust corps to look after their own best interests. This should create some level of balance.

It's about time

[DrLudicrous]

It's about time that these big companies like Yahoo and Verizon stepped up to the plate to bat for us. End users are not going to self-assemble into a class-action lawsuit with high-priced lawyers that can do battle with those of the RIAA. The only entities capable of protecting us in the courts are those able to afford the lawyers- so big ISP's fit the bill perfectly. They have the most to lose, but the most resources to fight against that loss, and by proxy they are fighting for us, the end users.

All setbacks are temporary

[tuxlove]

The battle won't be over until the RIAA is disbanded. Legal setbacks are meaningless other than as delays in pursuit of their goals. They have as much money and time as they need to chip away at consumer rights. Failure in any attempt they make simply means they'll come back again using different tactics.

I don't see the RIAA going away any time soon, so neither will the battle.

If they don't win this time

[buswolley]

the RIAA will next time. Am i being a pessimist? Yes i am. But I think they will win. Entertainment industry---->Media------------>Positve press coverage------>re-election. they win. WE LOSE. sad.

Witch Hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is doing the equivalent to what the US Government is doing to find "terrorists". Don't get me wrong, there needs to be national security but this is getting ridiculous. The RIAA reminds me of McCarthy. I am glad to see Yahoo! and others stand up to them.

Who funds the RIAA?

[Mustang Matt]

Is it strictly off of record sales?

I wouldn't think they'd be hard to put out of business, or at least dent them enough to hurt their lawyers.

I've found that artists listen to their fans. If we can come up with a better solution for the artist I bet it wouldn't be that difficult to get them to hop on.

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[Graymalkin]

I hope you get modded up +1 Funny. You're twenty pounds of funny in a five pound sack.

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[DrLudicrous]

Obviously, it's the Illuminati.

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[Billly Gates]

"If we can come up with a better solution for the artist I bet it wouldn't be that difficult to get them to hop on."

Unfortunately the retailers have exclusive contracts forbidding them to sell any cd's from non RIAA approved companies. If a major label likes an artist with an indie background, they will usually just license the music and redistribute it to the retailers so all the artists have to come through them. Unfortunately all the smaller cd stores have all but closed thanks to megastores with exclusive contracts who can sell the cd's cheaper due to rates thanks to the RIAA.

I bet this was probably the RIAA's plan all along. THey own a monopoly through all the distribution channels so they can raise the prices. I also believe consumers have been boycotting them and the RIAA blames this on piracy and continues to fund new laws. It seems like the more they boycott the more they pribe the politicians and the more they can use these figures to make it look like piracy. Either way were screwed.

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[crawling_chaos]

It's not the Illuminati directly. The RIAA is controlled by the Boy Sprouts, who are controlled by the Post Office, who, of course, are controlled by the Illuminati.

And as for /.? definitely controlled by the Discordians!

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[kadehje]

I bet this was probably the RIAA's plan all along. THey own a monopoly through all the distribution channels so they can raise the prices. I also believe consumers have been boycotting them and the RIAA blames this on piracy and continues to fund new laws. It seems like the more they boycott the more they pribe the politicians and the more they can use these figures to make it look like piracy. Either way were screwed.

Isn't this sort of combined monopoly what the Sherman Antitrust Act is supposed to prevent? You have an organization made up of not one but five major players (and a boatload of minor players) joining forces to act as a monopoly. If that's not a cartel, then I don't know what would qualify as one. Sure, the FTC has accused the RIAA of price-fixing schemes and has managed to get Hilary's boys to agree to some token settlements, but that has little changed the economic arena for either the consumers (CD prices have yet to fall as a result of competition amongst labels) or the signed artists.

I know Microsoft hasn't been a Boy Scout in its business dealings and probably needs to be smacked around for its arrangments it makes with OEM's to help support their monopoly position. But IMHO, the RIAA is in even bigger violation of antitrust laws. I think it's high time for the DOJ to dismantle the RIAA and make all labels, majors and indies alike, to compete in the marketplace. Then, you'll see some labels raise their market share as a result of signing superior talent, superior marketing of said talent, and selling their music as at a fair price. And you'll see others fall by the wayside. The ones that fail will not fail as a result of "piracy," but instead as a result of not running their business as well as their competitors.

Even a monopoly can't charge arbitrarily high prices without driving customers away. Only in the IP industry can one claim that all declines in sales are the result of "piracy." In the IP industry, the music and movie industries are the ones beating the piracy drum the loudest. Is deciding that I won't buy the newest Nelly CD because its price is $18 "piracy"? Or how about the fact I've slowed my CD-buying to a trickle because the music that's coming out of this cartel almost never coincides with my music preferences? Is that piracy? What about the fact that I find other things more worthwhile for my entertainment budget than buying CD's? Is spending my money (which the RIAA practically claims is their entitlement from God) on a museum admission, an evening of blackjack at the casino down the road, or seeing (gasp!) a live band piracy?

It's a shame we don't have term limits on members of the U.S. Congress in this nation. We have Congressmen that have been in office 30 or 40 years, and a few even longer than that. And we expect those people, who probably lost touch with the music industry in the early part of the vinyl LP era, to make lasting policy decisions that will affect not only the music industry but the entire "intellectual property" industry as a whole? I just hope that the damage that the DMCA and future legislation that this underinformed Congress passes at the request of the RIAA's (and its allies') lobbyists reveals itself slowly enough that the next generation of legislators who grew up in the "Information Age" can take steps to stop and eventually reverse it.

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[poot_rootbeer]

Unfortunately the retailers have exclusive contracts forbidding them to sell any cd's from non RIAA approved companies.

Post proof or retract. My opinion is that you're making that up.

I know of several small labels (as in, the entire company has 2-3 employees) whose CDs can be found alongside the Columbia's and the Warner Bros'es in major record stores. I can vouch that these labels have absolutely no affiliation with the RIAA.

Sure, you can only find RIAA-member-label discs if you shop for music at Wal-Mart, but that's a symptom, not a cause, of the position of RIAA labels at the top of the industry.

I agree-- but what we need is

[einhverfr]

A good alternative for music distribution and artist promotion. Lets face it, Napster ain't it but it shows the potential that the net can provide.

I am starting a completely different business and don't have time to devote myself to this effor full time, but I am trying to assemble people that want to fight the RIAA and build somethign better, more open, and more empowering. I see this as the ONLY way to undermine the drive for DRM. If people are interested, feel free to email me. I have ideas,but there are only 24 hours in the day...

Good Guys? You really think that...

[1qaz2wsx]

Good Guys? Do you really think that Verizon et. al. are doing this because it is the right thing to do? No way. They are **really** mad because the RIAA is trying to force the cost of enforcing their copyrights onto everyone but themselves. The point taken by Verizon et. al. is right on the mark, the RIAA is not allowing due process; but they are protecting their shareholders, not intentionally "fighting the good fight". The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

Some odd points from the article:

[CBNobi]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the legal brief.

"The music industry pays the RIAA to investigate and prosecute copyright infractions. They don't pay us a penny to do that. They don't pay ISPs a penny to do that. Even if they did, it would be a violation of due process and subscriber privacy."

So what if they did pay? It seems that the anti-RIAA people (telcos, ISPs, civil liberties) are still partly in it for the money. After all, the payment issue shouldn't even arise when the problem at hand is the DMCA's "turbocharged" subpoena clause.

The groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Alert, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and National Consumers League, argued the RIAA is relying on a portion of the DMCA that violates Americans' right to be anonymous online

Everyone has certain rights (such as anonymity) until they commit a crime. Pirating music (whethey they're justified or not) is still a violation of copyrights. Why do ISPs have the right to refuse handing over the information when they can be considered criminals?
Is it because they don't provide the actual connections for the P2P network?

(Not a troll, just curious)

Re:Some odd points from the article:

[thumbtack]

Everyone has certain rights (such as anonymity) until they commit a crime. Pirating music (whethey they're justified or not) is still a violation of copyrights. Why do ISPs have the right to refuse handing over the information when they can be considered criminals? Is it because they don't provide the actual connections for the P2P network?

Ah, but therein lies the problem, there is no due process under the DMCA. Just the mere accusation is enough.

Dselexic RIAA employee writes down an ip address wrong, switching the last two digits. Next thing you know is that someone is kicked off their connection, hauled into court under the No Electronic Theft Act, and they have to prove their innocence, rather than the accusser having to prove their guilt.

What's wrong with this picture?

The scenario changed when it became a criminal act and not a civil matter.

Re:Some odd points from the article:

[Fesh]

"Mr. Buttle? The torturer--erm... Information Retreival Officer will see you now..."

Re:Some odd points from the article:

[CrystalFalcon]

Everyone has certain rights (such as anonymity) until they commit a crime.

That's the whole point. Nobody is established to have committed a crime until they are convicted of it.

Suspects are not convicts, and are not without rights (such as anonymity). Especially not when they only exist as "suspects" in a non-law-enforcement organization.

Re:Some odd points from the article:

[Sylver Dragon]

So the matter should be brought to court, as least as far as showing that "John Doe" has a case to answer. The court should then order the ISP to reveal the identity of the John Doe(s) concerned so that the matter can be brought to trial.

And this is exactly how the current law handles this sort of thing. If I am acting anonymously and commit a crime, any crime, a "John Doe" case would be filed, and the records that prove my identity would be supeonaed, and I would be identified. However, this would all be done under the watchful eye of a judge, not at the whim of a company. Laws to this affect were enacted to protect people from a company that had become repressive.
If my current employer began doing illegal/immoral things and I give an anonymous interview and the press prints my statements, my employer is, very likely, going to want to find out who gave those statements and persecute me. With the way the law is supposed to work, they have no way to force the reporter to give up my name, unless they file a "John Doe" case in court. Then a judge gets to look at the case and either decide that I did do something illegal and need to be identified, or that my employer is just trying to get my name in order to get back at me. Its a good system, and protects whistleblowers and the like from the problems that usually come about from being such.
This idea of due-process is a good thing, it protects people from companies that might otherwise do some really nasty stuff to them.

The Beauty of Enlightened Self-Interest

[hillct]

It's great to see this coalition fighting the RIAA and MPAA, but make no mistake about it. Most of these coalition members are acting entirely out of enlightened self-interest rather than fighting the good fight on behalf of internet users. The article is vary clear about this but it bears repeating:

"What the RIAA is really seeking, at the end of the day, is to shift the burden of copyright enforcement from its own members--who apparently would prefer not to alienate potential customers by suing them outright--to an ISP that does nothing more than provide an Internet connection to the customer," the brief says.

[...]

In July, the RIAA invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force Verizon to turn over the identity of a Kazaa subscriber. Verizon opposed the request, telling a federal district court in Washington that the DMCA's turbocharged subpoena process does not cover people who are participating in a peer-to-peer network like Kazaa. The fact that these companies are acting together to protect their own interests is actually a good thing in that their interests actually do coincide with those of the consumer. This type of synergy is quite rare and should be supported by consumers while they continue to recognize the corporate motives behind it.

--CTH

False Hope for a False Champion.

[buswolley]

Following this legal triviality between two groups of corporations is distracting. This article is really reporting the struggle of several corporate entities fighting in their financial interests. Wishful thinking splashes all over Slashdot if we begin to think that the various ISP and Yahoo companies are taking up the SLASHDOT freedom loving sword to smite down our Evil Enemies, the TODHSALS. i mean the RIAA etc. Corporations will never be on our side until greed is not single most important variable in policy decisions. So ignore this Slashdot article and instead let us find a new way of beating the RIAA from the grassroots, where the best technology comes from. and no, i have no ideas.

Re:False Hope for a False Champion.

[Lonath]

let us find a new way of beating the RIAA from the grassroots, where the best technology comes from. and no, i have no ideas.

OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! CALL ON ME! CALL ON ME! I KNOW! I KNOW!

It's called never give the copyright industry any of your money ever again.. If you aren't willing to take this step, then you're a part of the problem.

Same old crap from the RIAA

[ColaMan]

Quote by the RIAA:
"They (the ISP's) are trying to avoid the cost of identifying infringers as provided for in the DMCA by imposing unrealistic and burdensome obligations on copyright owners instead."

What?? You mean they are suggesting the RIAA use the law like everyone else has to? The nerve of those ISP's!
I'm pretty sure that it's the obligation of the copyright owner to preserve their copyright.

Rollback Copyright Laws Instead

[serutan]

Come on, this legal bickering is for weasels. The problem isn't whether or not the DMCA's subpoena rules apply to P2P users, or any other legal technicality. The problem is that the copyright ownership industry is so lucrative, and it's that way because Congress has made it so, by obligingly making copyrights last longer and longer at the whim of the entertainment industry.

The recording industry wouldn't have anywhere near the power they have if their rights only lasted a few years, which was the original intent of copyright. It was meant to encourage creativity and inventiveness, not as a tool to keep anything valuable from ever dropping into public domain. But by extending copyrights again and again, people like Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) have given the copyright-ownership industry a golden goose, which they naturally want to keep alive forever.

If you want to help fix the problem, find out who your congressional reps are and write to them, on clean paper in an actual envelope, asking them to rollback copyright law to a sane level. I'd really like to see people actually exercise their freedom of speech in this matter, instead of lawyers merely using it as body armor.

Hmmmm...

[Overcoat]

Verizon's user allegedly has been swapping songs by artists including Billy Joel, Barry White, Aerosmith, Janet Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, N'Sync and Britney Spears.

Is it possible to be sued for having really cheesy taste in music?

Re:Hmmmm...

[martissimo]

Verizon's user allegedly has been swapping songs by artists including Billy Joel, Barry White....

hey now dont go dissin Barry White, that man's croonin can really turn a woman on... heck it may even cause a need to break out one of those newfangled Lin3x Condoms ;)

Re:What does it matter?

[MalleusEBHC]

even though it's not fun to admit, people DO pirate music.
Well I'm probably risking getting labeled a troll for this, but oh well. Virtually everyone posting on slashdot seems to think that pirating music is their right. However, just because you may believe in open source and the accompanying ideals of free (not as in beer) software does NOT mean that you can force these ideals on the record industry. They (and the artists who choose to sign with them) obviously feel that they own the intellectual property rights to the music. If you want to argue there is no such thing as intellectual property that makes most of this moot, but it also opens up a whole new can of worms that I have never the time nor the desire to delve into.
I certainly think there are a lot of things wrong with the record industry and how it is driven by the dollar and not the music, but like it or not it is their right to sell the music. This is just the same as any developer who sells proprietary hardware; they spent the time to make it and it is their right and their right alone to decide if and how they wish to sell it. If people pirated software as much as they pirated music, there would not be a software industry left standing.
Software developers take measures to make sure their works aren't pirated. Yes there are extreme examples like M$, but what about say game developers who require you to have the CD and/or a CD key to play the game. I know this is not a foolproof method, but it is fairly simple and helps cut down on piracy. No one jumps on these developers for doing this, yet the RIAA can't even be mentioned on slashdot without hordes of people mudslinging. While I don't agree with stuff like the legislation to DoS P2P network users, the RIAA also tries on much more legitimate legal grounds to stunt piracy. Is it really that bad of them to try and protect what is legally theirs in the first?

Re:An excellent quote

[cioxx]

As far as I can see, people won't stand for this shift of burden the RIAA is seeking.

Yes, in theory it sounds really exciting. People coming together to take on one of the greediest corporate helldemons out there, for the good of the land. But the sad reality is that 99% of people complain and never do anything about it. You would think the average American/European consumer who essentially has the say whether a given product/service is a "keeper" would be a vocal voice when it comes to asinine legislature. But people assimilate.

It could be justifiably compared to the nerdy kid and the schoolyard bully. You let him pick on you without fighting back, and just open the floodgates of abuse. RIAA has tested the waters, and they came to the conclusion that people will put up with their shit.

This just goes to prove the notion that indifference of the users to take any swift action is not an OSS centric problem. People from all walks of life use "portable music", and when the time comes to take a stand and rage against the machine, everyone just thinks they cannot make a difference on a personal level. It multiplies into millions of ignoramuses, and in turn empowers **AA to swing their dick in any preferred direction while knocking civil liberties around.

How long will it take before people realize that just by talking about it, evil will not just vaporize into thin air?

Copy protected CDs --> Idiotic Windows XP Authentication methods --> DRM --> Crippled hardware --> Palladium --> Microchips under your skin... what's next?

Raise your hand. Make a Fist. Fight Back!

Re:An excellent quote

[Zemran]

You would think the average American/European consumer who essentially has the say whether a given product/service is a "keeper" would be a vocal voice when it comes to asinine legislature. But people assimilate.

Don't drag us poor Europeans into this. Copyright is still a civil matter here and I hope it stays that way. They are trying to force a DMCA type law on us but it is not here yet and we don't want it. The last major case in the UK by MS was hailed as copyright/piracy in the press but the guy was convicted of fraud in reality as he sold the Windows CDs as Windows CDs instead of admitting they were fakes. If he had admitted they were fakes to his customers he could only have been sued rather than prosecuted for a crime.

Re:What does it matter?

[gazbo]

Yes, people have always copied music to tapes. This is lossy and slow, and hard to distribute. Yeah, so you'll copy a CD a couple of times and give it to the two friends who wanted it.

Burning CDs. Not lossy, but slow and hard to distribute. Same sort of distribution as the tapes, but with the possibility of n+1th generation copies.

Ogg/MP3/WMA - initial, insignificant quality loss, with no further loss on generational copies. Seriously easy to distribute. When I am on Gnutella, I usually limit to between 4 and 6 simultaneous uploads. They are always maxed out, with a queue of people waiting for the slots to become free. If I left my computer on the network for 24 hours, I could reasonably expect to have uploaded a couple of hundred songs. See the difference?

Now, I've already admitted to pirating music - the important fact is that I realise it is wrong, rather than trying to claim I have a God given right to so so.

Re:hmm

[bakes]

It's a good bet that he downloaded KaZaa to grab other music, and is blissfully unaware that he's been 0wn3d, his entire music collection has been copied numerous times, and he can't figure out why the refrigerator doesn't work properly and his ice cream is all melty.

$$$ vs. $$$

[imperator_mundi]

Everybody want money
=> ISP want money
=> ISP want customers
=> ISP customers = internauts
=> internauts want fun as well as money
=> internauts want fun without paying (or at bargain price)
=> Internet surfin isn't that big fun
=> internauts want something else
=> something else = e.g. mp3 sharing
=> no p2p = no need 4 broadband
=> no cash 4 ISP
=> RIAA is an enemy of ISP

Re:$$$ vs. $$$

[wizkid]

RIAA is not just the enemy of the ISP, your
leaving out:

=> Musicians and Artists
=> Customers
=> The computer Industry
=> 16 year old kids that want to watch DVD's on
their computer
=> Open Source community.

Sooner or later, their policies will come back
to haunt them. I hope it's sooner, not later.

Of course ISPs are going to fight this.

[Agent Green]

So, one user at $30-$50/month for a DSL connection amounts to about $360-$600 per year of income. After costs, that could be a pretty decent profit depending on the operating margin.

A number of users are drawn to broadband for the purpose of high-speed file transfers and such, which grows the subscriber base, therefore growing income and profit.

If the RIAA were to drop some kind of magic iron curtain on these activities, the subscriber base may not grow or drop, affecting the bottom line for ISPs and providers like Verizon. The RIAA certainly isn't going to cough up any extra cash to prop up the bottom line of the provider.

Naturally, Verizon is fighting to keep growing its subscriber base and preserve its economic interest. Besides, who's in business for free?

Hypocrissy by the RIAA

[fortinbras47]

In a statement, RIAA President Cary Sherman had accused Verizon of playing "a legal shell game" to save itself money. "The only thing Verizon is protecting is Verizon's own business interests," Sherman said.

And what the hell is the RIAA trying to do?!?!??!?!

How do artists get paid in America ?

[chthon]

Here in Belgium we have SABAM, which I think should be kind of neutral because it groups artists, authors and publishers.

This means that it should maybe be possible to co-operate with such an agency and an online download system, which makes music available for the price that the artist wants (and should get). Downloads and payments on that system could be transferred to the agencies' database for payment to the artist, while at the same time the artist could get weekly and monthly reports about the amount of money he should get.

What could be needed to offer artists freedom of corporations ?

• Digital recording software, in several levels of complexity, for home-made recordings up to real recording studio possibilities
• A safe digital storage network for copyrighted works
• A safe online payment system, which not only offers credit card payments, but also the possibility of subscriptions, which can be payed using all possible payment methods
• Possibilities to download content
• Possibilities to order pressed content (CD)

The biggest problem I see here is to know what the overhead costs are in setting up and maintaining this system, cost which of course should be spread over all the artists and works. Thus, the more artists and works there are on the system, the lower the cost per item, which means that people would probably pay a much fairer price.

Unfortunately the retailers

[oliverthered]

So what would happen if all the retailers said fuck there RIAA contracts, Jesus there all a bunch of wimps are thery really that scared of the RIAA what will the RIAA do if they offend all the retail outlets!

Re:Unfortunately the retailers

[mOdQuArK!]

Well, the RIAA would probably sue each retailer for breach-of-contract, win lots of money from them & use that money to continue sueing the other retailers until they gave in & did what they had legally agreed to do.

locked into long term contracts

[oliverthered]

Evere heard of a revolt, there all wimps if there contracts were that crap they'd form a union and all go on strike. fuck there contracts and the RIAA.

Re:What does it matter?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

People have been pirating music longer than most of us have been alive. People copied cassette tapes, copied records to tapes, cd's to tapes, and shared them with their friends. And can you guess? There is still a recording industry.

Yep, there is, barely. Now, I'm not going to claim this isn't somewhat self-inflicted: the music industry does unquestionably charge absurd amounts for material, it does unquestionably pack albums with a couple of decent tracks that get released as singles and then filler rubbish for the rest, and it does unquestionably produce lots of production line acts that just aren't very good right now. But none of these give you a right to break the law and rip them off.

If you don't like it, make like every other industry in the capitalist world and vote with your wallet: buy good stuff, don't buy anything else. They'll soon enough get the hint at that point. Just don't rip the last three Britney Spears CDs over Kazaa and then claim that the recording industry profits have been hit because they produce cheesy pop that no-one wants to buy.

And by the way, yes, I bought my copy of Windows (not with a new machine), I bought my copies of Baldur's Gate II, Deus Ex, Quake n, and so on, and my office does have legit licences for all the MS software we use (and everyone is very careful not to violate licensing agreements on more expensive software for which we have limited licences available).

When you use technology to limit access to a copyrighted work in such a way that it limits the consumers ability to exercise their right to fair use, then its "that bad of them".

Yawn. If you don't like it, take it out on the zillions of people who are ripping off the media industries wholesale and forcing them to go down that path. I don't like it either; I'm a member of a dancing club, and we routinely (and legitimately) shift music (all of which we've bought, and for which we have the appropriate public performance licences and such) onto premixed CDs and such. When we can't do that any more, our lives will be more difficult, and we haven't done anything wrong to deserve it. But lots of people have, and being objective, I find it hard to be upset when the RIAA tries to defend its legal rights, and very easy to laugh at people who use "fair use" as a blanket guard against "I can't rip my Britney CD any more and it's not fair <sob>".

He isn't

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Does anyone know why this one person was so important??

He isn't, really; he's just one more person using Kazaa to rip off the music biz. That's exactly the point: anyone doing this is now at risk of having the book thrown at them, and most people can't afford that.

Union

[oliverthered]

1 person might just get dumped, but if 80%-90% of POP stars went on strike for 6 months or until there contracts were revised, how fucked would they be then.

Re:Union

[hiryuu]

...but if 80%-90% of POP stars went on strike for 6 months or until there contracts were revised, how fucked would they be then.

Are you forgetting how boy bands are assembled? How the Spice Girls were created? The lessons learned from American Idol? They'll just make more popstars from new, unheard, unknown "talent" that's willing to take the same ol' stick up the backside for a chance at being famous/rich/something.

That missing the key point

[tkrotchko]

Yes, people are pirating music, but so what?

People shoplift.

People speed.

People do all sorts of horrible nasty things. But we've managed to stick with due process

What's so different and important about alleged copyright violations that we need to jettison the the Bill of Rights?

Can someone please explain why the RIAA and MPAA members are deserving of a new special status under the law?

Re:That missing the key point

[suicidal]

Take that one step further....

People shoplift
Baggy Pants are NOT illegal
Doesn't matter if you could fit a cooler for Sears in your pants, you still have the right to wear them, and put anything you own, borrowed, etc.. in them. They could be used to steal, but stealing itself is illegal, the pants have legitimate legal uses. It would be stupid to outlaw the pants just because someone decided that their primary purpose was to aid shoplifters.

People Speed
Cars that can exceed 75mph are NOT illegal. Speeding is illegal, it is up to the owner of the car to decide how to use it.

People do all sorts of horrible and nasty things
And they do them with everyday items that we would be hard pressed to do without. Go to prison, they have pretty much everything taken from them (they should have a lot more taken), but they still manage to create weapons and kill each other. So what next? Keep outlawing everything that has or can be used for an illegal purpose? Keep that up, and we'll be the ones with nothing. Punish the crime, leave the freedom to choose how to use legitimate tools with the people.

Re:That missing the key point

[tkrotchko]

Exactly (although the other guy made a good point).

If we agree that Copyright violations are against the law and cause someone economic harm, then we can agree that the law should act as it always has.

What's so horrible about copyright violations that we need to give RIAA and MPAA members special privledges ? Hell, if I steal the digital masters the RIAA uses to burn the CD's, I have more rights than if I copied the MP3's that somebody ripped and put on Kazaa.

Its crazy.

True Cause for Lawsuit

[Nopaca]

Everyone has certain rights (such as anonymity) until they commit a crime. Pirating music (whethey they're justified or not) is still a violation of copyrights. Why do ISPs have the right to refuse handing over the information when they can be considered criminals?

ISPs don't have the right to refuse to hand over subscriber information, as long as the copyright holder or its assignee begins a "John Doe" court proceeding in which the target of the suit is uniquely identified by their actions. The ISP is then handed a subpoena, as in any other civil case, that requests information that is important for the court's decision, such as information that can positively identify the John Doe. The ISP will legally have to comply with this subpoena by providing the subscriber information to the court.

However, the DMCA has a special provision, intended to speed copyright holders' takedowns of infringing material from web sites, which allows the rights holder to expedite the removal of such material by requiring the ISP to remove it within a short period of time of receiving the request and notifying the ISP client. The client can halt the takedown by formally claiming that the material does not infringe, thus leading them to some serious legal problems if they are not telling the truth. This section of law was not written in such a way that it is clear whether it applies equally to material that is stored on the computers of ISP clients rather than on ISP company web servers. (Remember, to anyone over forty, internet = web.) Thus the possibility for the current legal conflict.

So, why are the ISPs bothering to fight this? You are right that it is all about money, of course, but I seriously doubt that it's over the money that the ISPs could otherwise extort from copyright holders for this service. Try reading the sentences

"The music industry pays the RIAA to investigate and prosecute copyright infractions. They don't pay us a penny to do that. They don't pay ISPs a penny to do that. Even if they did, it would be a violation of due process and subscriber privacy."

as rhetorical, as in "I don't know why I, as a state warden, have to execute this mafia informant who happens to also be a murderer - the mafia doesn't pay my salary, and even if they did, it would be against my conscience as I don't believe in capital punishment." Instead, the money in question is what the ISPs would lose if they were seen by their customers as ready to interfere in this way with client use of the leased bandwidth, or more likely, the money that it would cost to even try to police copyright infringements that occurred through internet services and were stored on client hard drives. If you don't think it's really that much of a big deal, I'll illegally email you a song to prove the point.

A more interesting question, though, is why doesn't the RIAA just follow the standard process and obtain a John Doe subpoena? They must have the evidence to do this. One possibility is that they would rather set a precedent that they can request takedowns of infringing material stored on client hard drives using the easy, no-fuss method as they read Congress as having intended it. Note that this is what they claim as their motive.

However, this rationale doesn't hold very much water, since it makes no sense for the RIAA to try to file a lawsuit against any significant number of file traders in an effort to eradicate infringement. The whole strategy must revolve around suing a small subset of file traders in an effort to remove those nodes which offer the largest set of files and to scare off all of the rest, in effect "firing into the crowd". It would simply be too expensive to police infringement by catching all copyright violators - that's more than half of American teenagers, and even an expedited discovery process is not going to make that cost effective. In the case of a small number of lawsuits, whether the discovery is expedited or not makes little difference and is not worth fighting over, except on principle (which the notoriously mercenary RIAA asserts as a secondary motive, of course.)

A moment of thought indicates that a much more likely reason to wish for the expedited process in this case is so that the RIAA can see who the defendant will be before they actually launch an infringement lawsuit. With the so-called turbocharged subpoena process, the RIAA can make a blanket call for the identity of one hundred infringers, investigate each person on the list, and choose the one who's a baby-beating homeless crack-ho terrorist hacker to hit with a lawsuit. As noted above, with the demographic reality of copyright infringement, they really don't want to follow standard practice and blindly file a John Doe lawsuit - heavens, that person could be the eleven-year-old granddaughter of one of the RIAA executives, or Jenna Bush. Knowing what you're getting into before making public legal filings that could be very embarrassing later is almost mandatory in this situation, and you can expect the copyright holders' organisations to press for this power as strongly as they can.

A final comment: the civil liberties organisations are not in it for the money.

"On the face of it, Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black." - Adam Barr, former Microsoft employee

Re:forgetting how boy bands are assembled

[hiryuu]

Nope and that's kinda my point boy bands are a fad thing all the fans will be left a bit empty, for a while at least. The news will be full of stories about the evil pop stars going on strike.

I think you're highly overestimating the depth and dedication of the average boy-band / Britney / stupid-popstar fan. I think if the major labels see any kind of defection of their major stars on the horizon, they'll prepare the next generation in the background like some kind of... some kind of... clone army, or something. :P

You also may be assuming that many of these popstars have squirreled away their earnings, or have residuals from songwriting, etc., to fall back on. I'll bet a large portion of the "younger" (from a career standpoint) have absolutely squat in net worth.

Re:What does it matter?

[dachshund]

and very easy to laugh at people who use "fair use" as a blanket guard against "I can't rip my Britney CD any more and it's not fair "

But that actually is fair use, as long as they don't intend to redistribute that Britney CD. At least, it's just as much fair use as your dancing club shifting music onto pre-mixed CDs. It seems ridiculous that you'd complain about other people doing the exactly the same legal thing you are. Just because somebody else has crappy taste doesn't make their position any less legitimate.

And this stoic "I'll be upset when I lose that right, but I'll take it in stride because the record companies are just protecting themselves" attitude is another way of saying "my rights are not important and can be trampled." Whether you're a Britney fan or a professional musicologist doing serious academic research, laws like the DMCA hurt us by taking away rights and extending copyright far beyond what is was meant to cover.

Been in a music store lately?

[Arcturax]

Just curious, but have you? I was at the mall this weekend so I stopped in several stores which have a music section or are purely music stores. The music sections were absolutely dead and of the 2 record stores I saw in the mall, one had 2 people in it. The other was totally empty except for employees standing around looking extremely bored.

Next I went to a second hand music store not far from the mall and it was packed. So even people who are not downloading are buying their music second hand at the least because of CD prices. If the RIAA would lower their prices to reasonable levels people might bome back. Instead they are wasting money on lawsuits and getting everyone so mad at them that they are actively searching out other means of getting the music and even finding legal ways to do so (second hand stores).

So the RIAA's death will be multipronged. First, they are losing money like crazy now. Second, they are pissing off their customers, something you do not do in buisiness which is making the first reason worse for them. Third, artists themselves are starting to see the light and using the internet to cut out the middle man. (See non RIAA label Metropolis Records and their support for internet radio station DigitalGunfire.com). Lastly, they are losing stream with congress as tech companies and ISP's realize that they have a hell of a lot more clout as long as they start using their money the way the RIAA has. I simply don't see the RIAA making it another 3 years, maybe 5 at the most.

Re:Been in a music store lately?

[Sabalon]

Part of the problem I'm sure is the high rent rates stores like Sam Goody's, Camelot, or whatever have to pay for their space in the mall. Even going to Best Buy (shudder) is a lot cheaper than the mall.

I prefer to go to the second hand stores, even for new stuff if possible - much friendlier staff, nicer environment, etc...

Re:Been in a music store lately?

[seaan]

Even going to Best Buy (shudder) is a lot cheaper than the mall.

One reasons for that is that Best Buy is not making money selling [at least some] CDs. A couple of years ago several record companies were convicted of price fixing. The basis of the lawsuit was that Best Buy was selling CDs below the "recommended cost", and therefore did not qualify for industry kick-backs.

From articles on the music business, the store that consistently buys CDs with the lowest prices is Walmart. I don't know how there retail prices compare to non-sale CDs elsewhere though...

I've pretty much stopped buying CDs from stores (mostly as a RIAA protest). I buy either directly from the artist or second-hand.

Re:forgetting how boy bands are assembled

[Safety Cap]

Anyone who's half decient could join together to make there own lable [sic] without the RIAA.

How are you going to promote yourself? You can't play anything on the radio without getting ClearChannel's permission, since they own the majority (all?) of radio stations in the country and wield enourmous power. Remember 9/11's song banning last year (grep for "Purging Playlists")?

So, if you don't go with the RIAA, you can't play your song on any ClearChannel station and you can't have your concert at any ClearChannel venue. Basically, you'll play local bars and clubs and hopefully get big enough to be invited to a mainstream venue.

Ever wonder why none of Prince's post-WB stuff is on the radio? Hmm...

Re:forgetting how boy bands are assembled

[oliverthered]

So the RIAA is going to play the same songs day-in day-out for six months.
Slap my bitch up sold quite well despite being banned.

Re:What does it matter?

[arkanes]

I think you completely fail to see the point, which is not that they're stopping me from pirating music - sell a decent product for a decennt price (I have no problem buying CDs directly from artists, for example), but that they want to not only over-charge me for a product, which "they" (the cartel of RIAA members) have a monopoly control over, but that they then want me to pay for it for each and every way I want to use it. Essentially, the RIAA view of copyright is fundamentally different from mine.

Note that this is not an attempt to justify music pirating as some sort of political statement. That's moronic. However, it is an attempt to explain why my distaste and dislike of the RIAA goes far beyond "They want me to actually pay for stuff, wah wah wah". It's not about me getting free stuff. It's about my distaste for an entrenched organization that manipulates markets and people in an attempt to sell a product for inflated prices, and ruthlessly attempts to squash and technology that could threaten that stranglehold. The music industry likes to justify costs and it's fear of the internet by talking about how much it costs to promote a new artist, and how many fail to return that money, and on and on... completely aside from the fact that it's the ARTIST that pays for that, not the label (who only fronts the money), the internet is a perfect medium for eliminating alot of those costs. But they'd have to actually respond to consumers, and give them what they want. And that's something that sticks in the RIAAs collective craw to no end. They're used too and really enjoy being the arbiters of popular entertainment, and the thought of losing that control scares them shitless.

Re:What does it matter?

[TheConfusedOne]

The problem is the methods that the RIAA is using and powers that they are asking for.

Currently there is a perfectly good system for finding and trying copyright infringers. Courts allow John Doe defendants and there is a whole process for requesting subpoenas to get information about ISP users. Additionally, there are already penalties for copyright infringement.

There is no need for additional laws.

The RIAA wants to completely destroy due process (the DMCA's take down provisions are "guilty until proven innocent"). They want to use poorly written laws to gain maximum advantage. Finally, they try to sneak new abilities into laws designed to fight terrorism.

Meanwhile, they're whining and crying poor and "file sharing is evil" when there's no evidence to back up their claims. In fact, to the contrary, file sharing seems to promote sales.

Finally, the member companies have been found guilty numerous times of price fixing and continue to rip off the artists who "work" for them (though with the ol' "work for hire" clause it's anything but).

So, no it's not bad for them to try to protect what is, unfortunately, legally theirs. The problem is why they should need a whole new set of laws to protect their stuff when everyone else has to deal with the legal system as it currently stands.

The numbers don't add up

[TheConfusedOne]

I always love this:
If you don't like it, take it out on the zillions of people who are ripping off the media industries wholesale and forcing them to go down that path.

Strangely enough, the RIAA's members claim millions upon millions of file sharers and can only point to a 7% drop in sales. If there were 3 million people sharing files (and thus not buying any music) that means they must have over 42 million people buying music. Pretty impressive.

Now even more interesting. Eminem's latest album was the highest traded "CD" on P2P networks a week before the album was released. They had to move up the release date because of this. Strangely enough, the album still hit #1 in sales with a record number of copies sold. But, if everyone already had it via P2P then why was it selling at all?

The RIAA simply cannot back up its claims with any facts.

Three branches, each protect their own power...

[Odinson]

Remember when MSFT tried to argue the states had no right to to bring it to court with different antitrust charges. Thirty somthing states awoke from their slumber and chalenged it.

Microsoft asked the court to take some of the states power.

Now Congress and President Clinton have tried to take some of the courts power and hand it to law enforcement and a group of wealthy companies!

The DMCA circumvents the judicial branches power approve or deny the when where and how of law enforcment action when criminal charges are brought. The courts can do somthing about it too, they can strike the law down as violating due process as stated in the constitution.

Verizon and friends lawyers just need to present it to the Judge that way and it will be gone in a second.

Judges must face peer review too, how can they face their equals and superiors with, "I took the moral low ground, contridicted the constitution, and made you condierably less powerful.

Get rid of the RIAA

[j_kenpo]

You know, everyone just bitches about the RIAA, DMCA, and other such infringements on our freedom. The answer is simple... BOYCOTT!!! If a company supports the RIAA or uses the DMCA to infringe on our rights, dont support their products in any way. If Congressman Dipshit supports a law in favor of these, vote for his opponent. If Sony uses the DMCA do crack down on something that affects your life in such a way that you do not like, buy their competitors products. Spread rumors about how a mother lost a lawsuit when her babys hand was mangled in a DVD player, and Sony won the counter suit. Resist buying that PS2 and buy something else. At what point did we lose control of our lives? Why is it that big corporations can shit on us and tell us what we can and can not do with our products? Fsck them... They can kiss my ass. I wont be bullied by big corporations or their advocate groups. Im sick of these guys hideing behind "policy", something that is on paper. It cant physically prohibit you from doing something, so why are we subject to it. Its simple, dont buy the products of the supporters of the RIAA. Make them lose money. If they lose profit over it, they will discontinue contributions to such an agency, so the RIAA will be disbanned, the Chairman will be out of a job sleeping on the street in a cardboard box, so that we can all laugh at them and urinate on them in their sleep. Get control and do something about it, your the consumer, and your supposed to always be right...

Re:forgetting how boy bands are assembled

[Amazing Quantum Man]

So the RIAA is going to play the same songs day-in day-out for six months.

And exactly how would this be different from the current state of affairs?

Something better

[epeus]

I've put detailed proposals for a way to use the net to get musicians and other creative eople paid, and to encourage rather than attack sharing here

I'd love to hear your thoughts on them.

mediAgora defines a fair, workable market model that works with the new realities of digital media, instead of fighting them.

Principles:
* Creators should be credited and rewarded for their work.
* Works can be incorporated into new creative works.
* When they are, all source works should be credited and rewarded.
* Customers should pay a known price.
* Successful promotion of work should be rewarded too.
* Individuals can play multiple roles - Creator, Promoter, Customer
* Prices and sales figures should be open
* Relationships are based on trust and reputation
* Copy protection destroys value

Five words:

[MsGeek]

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

People want what is fresh, not some old 78 rpm of a hillbilly bluegrass and jug band.

There are lots of people who saw the movie and are actually very interested in that very stuff.

Re:What does it matter?

[jedidiah]

No, we're not all "just a bunch of pirates". This is simply a weak attempt at character assassination. Most of us merely don't believe that the social impact of piracy justifies the social and economic costs associated with recent "solutions" to the "problem" of piracy.

Robust civil liberties are simply incompatible with rigid copyright enforcement regimes. Furthermore, the media moguls wish everyone else to foot the bill for the onerous measures that they suggest.

Music CD's may be the next "horse and buggy", the RIAA is simply trying to take the rest of the economy down with it as it dies.

Re:forgetting how boy bands are assembled

[shren]

The funny thing is that I believe it when I hear that ClearChannel didn't put out a list.

You see, there are two types of managers. One type is able to use his discretion to work towards a goal. This type of manager is hired for his savvy and team building skills. The other is there to implement a fixed process which he has no input on. All he needs to be able to do is bully wage-earners into line and be able to himself cringe, not at the sight or sound of a whip, but at the mere knowledge of the whip's existance.

I bet Clear Channel hires a lot of the second. They don't want savvy promoters at the station end. They want people who not only follow the party line, but have it tied around delicate portions of their anatomy.

Re:What does it matter?

[macdaddy357]

The Recording industry calls its paying customers theives. No such industry deserves to have any customers. Boycott the recording industry. Kudos to Verizon and Yahoo for refusing to be their goon squad, and realizing that privacy is one of the things we pay our ISPs for each month.

Re:What does it matter?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But that actually is fair use, as long as they don't intend to redistribute that Britney CD.

Only if you paid for it first. Sorry if I was using the term ambiguously; by "ripping" I was referring to people who download rather than buying, not those who download for some reason having bought anyway.

And this stoic "I'll be upset when I lose that right, but I'll take it in stride because the record companies are just protecting themselves" attitude is another way of saying "my rights are not important and can be trampled."

No, it's not. It's just a pragmatic attitude towards something I don't like but have little chance of changing, nothing deeper than that.

I agree entirely...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm not for an instant suggesting that I like what the RIAA does, or that I think their attitude is completely reasonable. But there are ways to handle monopoly abuse aside from gratuitous disregard for the law of the land. The problem is with the monopoly abuse laws and how they are enforced, particularly in the US (c.f. Microsoft, etc.), not with the copyright principle.

OK...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm a member of a dancing club, and we routinely (and legitimately) shift music (all of which we've bought, and for which we have the appropriate public performance licences and such) onto premixed CDs and such.

Have you obtained a performance license for that music? Technically, by playing music for a group of people without a license, you are in violation of a number of laws, and are liable for some pretty hefty fines.

You might like to learn to read before you flame. We are perfectly legal in both how we buy the music, and how we use it at our classes and events.

Re:What does it matter?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Anybody else think Mr. A.C. is a shill for the RIAA?

I'm hardly an average AC. If you'd like to go back and spot the few hundred reasonable posts I've previously made to /., you'll find the link at the top of the page.

I love how he claims the recording insustry is just barely holding on.

Parts of it are. The sad thing is that the mainstream acts -- including most of the bad stuff -- is what will survive. It's the minor acts, the ones who offer the variety, who are going to lose out in the immediate future, as the RIAA and its members concentrate on their main revenue possibilities. Many of them lack either the resources or the know-how to put themselves in direct contact with the public; the music business does still provide a valuable service, if an overpriced one.

Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Strangely enough, the RIAA's members claim millions upon millions of file sharers

Where? Cite, please.

If there were 3 million people sharing files (and thus not buying any music)

One does not imply the other.

Eminem's latest album was the highest traded "CD" on P2P networks a week before the album was released. They had to move up the release date because of this. Strangely enough, the album still hit #1 in sales with a record number of copies sold.

You're looking at first week sales, not overall sales. You're also ignoring the fact that they brought forward the on-sale date and the fact that P2P networks have finite capacity but potentially exponential spread of material. They probably limited the damage a lot in that specific case by bringing forward the release date, so people desperate to get a copy weren't forced to download it illegally.

Someone apart from the RIAA seems reluctant to provide any facts around here...

Re:Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[TheConfusedOne]

Sometimes Google doesn't cough things up quick enough. Here's a site for you:
In the beginning of this year (according to Media Metrix) some 1.1 million people were accessing Napster each month. By the end of August usage had climbed to 6.7 million per month.
Source: http://www.themusic.com.au/im_m/archive/001010-229 /gilbey.html
I suppose you could maybe check Media Metrix as well. So that covers the 3 mill with some room to spare.

The "and thus not buying music" comment is aimed at the RIAA's statements and not at actual facts. The RIAA continues to claim that the loss in sales in directly attributable to file sharing. Almost every analysis performed has failed to back up that claim. Between economic downturns, increased DVD sales, and increased video game sales you can easily account for this loss. (There's also that increase in price in the analysis that you have to factor in as well.)

In the Eminem case it would seem that first week sales are even more relevant. Where did all the buzz come from that generated that huge sales spike? If they shifted forward the release date then they obviously weren't able to do all of the normal promotional activities you would get with an album release yet still sales soared.

Your final statement: They probably limited the damage a lot in that specific case by bringing forward the release date, so people desperate to get a copy weren't forced to download it illegally. doesn't parse at all.

First off, the statistics about Eminem were coming from GraceNote and were talking about physical CD's (see http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-923658.html for details). Second, if someone could buy an actual bootleg CD of it for $5 then why pay the RIAA tax? The first week sales were an all-time record of 1.76 million CD's. (details at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1428613/20000531/ eminem.jhtml)

So, there's some more numbers for you complete with citations to back them up.

Re:Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it. Sure, the RIAA tries to make like it's all due to the people ripping music off the 'net, when economic factors and other moves in the home entertainment biz must be an influence. But let's look at the links you posted for a minute.

Two of those links date from 2000. In early-mid 2000, CD sales were booming, with records being smashed all over the place, as noted in one of your linked articles. Also, as noted in another of your articles, the growth of Napster and on-line copying was enormous that year. By late 2000, and into 2001, CD sales were falling. Note that this was well before the dives the markets started to experience as the Internet bubble burst, and well before the economic crash after the events of a year ago. On the contrary, the world economy was thriving, and people were spending more than ever on luxury items -- except for CDs, it seems.

Now that, to me, suggests pretty strongly that while the recent economic conditions haven't helped, they weren't the only thing driving sales down.

As for the Eminem album issue, I don't follow your argument. If the recording studios didn't fear losing out to on-line rip-offs, why move the release date forward? That would be a pretty serious hassle, and if the public image really is all just PR, they'd have known that holding back a week would let all the magic advertising that on-line swapping was supposed to generate do its work, and then cleaned up the following week. But they didn't; why not?

Re:Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[TheConfusedOne]

The point is that Napster bloomed in 1999 (started 4th qtr). You note that early-mid 2000 CD sales were in fact, up. CD sales started to dip along with a couple of things: first, the economy dropping, second, the RIAA's legal assault on Napster and taking it off-line. That seems like a much stronger cause-and-effect relation. (Metallica sued Napster in April of 2000 and Napster took a whole bunch of users off-line in Mayh of 2000 - further details here: http://www.idg.net/idgns/2001/04/02/NapsterTimelin e.shtml)

So, we have your sales drop occurring after Napster's height was reached and was already declining due to legal actions.

As for the Eminem album issue, I don't follow your argument. If the recording studios didn't fear losing out to on-line rip-offs, why move the release date forward?
Why the studio felt they had to move the release date forward has nothing to do with reality. The reality is that the CD was already #2 based on Roxio's CDDB data of physical CD's before it was released. Now, this means that people already had a hard copy and didn't even have to go to the trouble of d/l'ing it. Now, despite all of this, the CD still enjoyed record sales. If the CD was so widely pirated (which it was) and the RIAA's proposed "piracy == lost sales" was true then the opening numbers should have been down. Instead, it seems that the advanced access only made people want the actual CD that much more.

Re:Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The point is that Napster bloomed in 1999 (started 4th qtr). You note that early-mid 2000 CD sales were in fact, up.

True, but they'd been going up for quite some time before that as well; as noted previously, the economy was very much on the up at that stage, and people were spending record amounts on luxury items.

CD sales started to dip along with a couple of things: first, the economy dropping, second, the RIAA's legal assault on Napster and taking it off-line.

But, as also noted previously, the major economic drops didn't hit until several months after the dip in CD sales. Other leisure items were still selling strongly at that point.

As for the Napster going off line issue, you have to remember that they were dead a long time before they gave up, and most people were using alternatives (Gnutella, Kazaa, whatever) well before then. While the rise of Napster clearly heralded the rise of on-line piracy on a mass scale, its fall did not similarly indicate a drop in on-line piracy.

Please remember, as you read this, that I'm not trying to convince you that the RIAA is right, or justified in their treatment of their customers. I am simply trying to demonstrate that there is a case to answer when people accuse the music biz of ripping people off wholesale, but claim their own copying of material has no harmful effect.

Re:Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[TheConfusedOne]

I understand that you're playing devil's advocate with this. HOWEVER, Napster was the single biggest P2P player out there. It also was the most popular and probably the easiest to use.

The fact is Napster went public around May of 1999. They enjoyed massive growth through 1999 and were hit with the RIAA lawsuit in December of that year. Now, we see that CD sales went up in both 1999 *AND* 2000. It would follow that CD sales should have dropped right along with the rise of Napster. Why would there be a lag in that dip?

I'm not trying to say that the evidence is at all conclusive. What I *AM* saying is that the evidence is certainly of a strong enough nature that the RIAA's facile explanation of "piracy cost us sales" needs a hell of a lot stronger set of facts before it can be accepted at even the basest level. (So, if I'm being held to that high level for proving a cause and effect, then they have to be too.)

Re:Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The fact is Napster went public around May of 1999. They enjoyed massive growth through 1999 and were hit with the RIAA lawsuit in December of that year. Now, we see that CD sales went up in both 1999 *AND* 2000. It would follow that CD sales should have dropped right along with the rise of Napster. Why would there be a lag in that dip?

I would argue (or rather, I'm sure the RIAA would argue) that other forms of P2P song swapping were taking over by that stage. Napster isn't what's relevant, the P2P swapping "industry" as a whole is.

I'm not trying to say that the evidence is at all conclusive. What I *AM* saying is that the evidence is certainly of a strong enough nature that the RIAA's facile explanation of "piracy cost us sales" needs a hell of a lot stronger set of facts before it can be accepted at even the basest level. (So, if I'm being held to that high level for proving a cause and effect, then they have to be too.)

That would be a fair point, if it weren't for the fact that the people you're defending are known to be breaking the law, while the people I'm arguing for aren't. Therein lies the problem with most anti-RIAA/pro-P2P comments, I think; they forget or ignore the fact that while we don't like the RIAA's business practices, those practices have not, to date, been found in any way illegal. The actions of those ripping material from the 'net, however, clearly are. Thus the standards to which the arguments must be made are very much not equal, as the charges being made are very different in nature.

Re:Someone else's numbers don't add up either

[TheConfusedOne]

Actually, the people you are arguing for have broken the law numerous times. Between various actions against the RIAA member companies by the FTC for price fixing to fraudulent accounting that takes money directly from the artists who are their life blood. (Look at the FTC's complaint for price fixing on the 'Three Tenors' albums. - http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/06/3tenors.htm)

Additionally, look at the legislative "edit" made to extend the work for hire clause to include musicians. Also, the efforts by the RIAA's members to get special protection from bankruptcy laws to keep artists from leaving onerous contracts after they've been financially ruined by them. Finally, look at the new powers the RIAA is saying is necessary to combat P2P.

The point is, the RIAA keeps waving this P2P bogeyman up in front of the public, and more importantly the congress, yet they can't prove any actual causal effect between P2P and record sales. In fact, the very opposite to their claims appears more likely to be true based on expert analysis.

The question of the legality of the actions of the P2P traders is moot. There already exists a body of law for the prosecution of these people. Additionally, we're already paying "taxes" on blank media to cover "lost revenues from piracy". The issue is that the RIAA has not made a convincing case that P2P is a business destroying thing that requires these new laws and powers.

I point you back to the efforts of the MPAA to stop the VCR with such colorful statements as:
"The VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler is to a woman alone."
At the time, they wanted to outlaw VCR's because they were going to destroy the industry. Instead, they were the savior of the industry. So, I think the RIAA should take a big step back and really and honestly evaluate the situation before they demand these new powers.

Strawman argument

[tkrotchko]

"Virtually everyone posting on slashdot seems to think that pirating music is their right"

I haven't seen anyone say that on slashdot, ever.

Lets stop this argument right here: we all know copyright violations are against the law. No argument. We all know that copyright holders are within their rights to attempt to stop those violations (again, within the limit of the law).

But the argument here seems to go like this:
"Digital copying is so easy, and costs the RIAA so much money that they shouldn't have to go to court to follow due process. Copyright holder should be allowed to simply demand any private information they want".

But why? Why is this crime deserving of special status? I can see no rational reason for this stance.

This is the equivalent of the store that sells CD's saying "I suspect you of stealing CD's. Therefore I will search your house to see if you have any CD's that are stolen".

You'd say "That's ridiculous". But somehow with electronic copyright violations, you throw out years of law simply to satisfy the RIAA?

I don't get your reasoning here. It doesn't make any sense.

Re:Counterclaim

[TheConfusedOne]

Yes, the counterclaim does allow you to restore your data. It also makes you liable for a whole range of nasties if you're in violation.

The issue is that there are already procedures for getting injunctions that require the filer to produce evidence that is then evaluated. The DMCA process only requires a "suspicion" on the filers part and off you go. For a good example look at this Salon article (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/08/23/ pirate/index.html)

As you can see, the takedown triggers too easily and there's not even a we're sorry at the end if they were completely wrong.

Happy birthday, Sonny!

[yerricde]

Certainly anything that the Bono Act falls under is going to be next to impossible to find.

Here's your birthday present: AOL Time Warner owns the copyright on the song "Happy Birthday to You".

In addition, nobody can release his or her own recording of "Rhapsody in Blue" by George Gershwin (first published in early 1923) without permission of the Gershwin estate. Without the Bono Act, this work would have fallen into the public domain on January 1, 1999.

In fact, under one interpretation of copyright law, it has become nearly impossible even to write your own songs because all the melodies are taken. (Please read the argument thoroughly before rejecting it.)

NEWS: Eldred's side has posted the final reply brief in the Bono Act case.