Slashdot Mirror
Rosen Floats ISP Fee Idea -- Charge Everybody!
iconian writes "Hillary Rosen of RIAA wants to impose a type of fee to ISPs which in turn will be passed to all their customers indiscriminately to recoup supposed damages done by file-sharing. The RIAA considers downloading music illegally over the Internet to be the moral equivalence of stealing. I wonder then what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?"
I don't understand why the RIAA thinks they can get away with this kind of thing and NOT have more consumer-backlash! All of these different things the RIAA is doing (flooding networks with bad files, installing "worms" into servers, etc) is just making me less likely to purchase anything from the RIAA.
Ah yes, the "Tax everybody for the crimes of the minority" scheme. you just have to love the busted logic. Where's the love, indeed? Joe over there was speeding so you get a ticket too! I see...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Hey - I'm all for it! If I'm charged a fee for downloading music, by golly, I'm going to download music!
Once I pay $0.01 in loss 'fees' to the RIAA, I consider myself licensed to download whatever is available. If I'm prevented, they should be prepared to be sued for failure to deliver a service for which fees were imposed.
Did you know that in many countries taxes are levied on CD writers and CDR discs because of piracy?
But, put that aside, one can argue this Piracy Tax with logic.
If the RIAA wants to impose a levy on ISPs because of possible file sharing, then shouldn't software companies be allowed to impose a similar levy? And if the RIAA can impose it, what about indie labels? Their music gets stolen too. What about artists who put their graphics online? What about font designers whose fonts get ripped off on alt.binaries.fonts? Surely they should all get a cut?
Logic shows this whole idea is stupid. But will logic be enough to stop the courts? I doubt it. Aristotle said 'The law is reason from my passion'. Not in 2002 it ain't.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Then it certainly means swapping music will become legal, right?
Tell you what. I'll give the RIAA and MPAA each five dollars a year if they'll simply stop trying to sue and get file sharing banned or whatever they're doing. Anyone else find it funny that a corporation is trying desperately to tax us? Corporations can't tax! Interest groups can't tak! Only the government can tax.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
This is as absurd as taxing every blank digital medium that gets sold in America, in case they're used to pirate music!!
oh.
Wait a sec.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
This is about as bright as the already in-effect tax on writeable media. It goes to the RIAA et al to reimburse them for piracy. So we pay for piracy and still can't do it.
Just when you thought that the corporate-owned government couldn't screw us in a more blatant, shameless and imaginative way, along comes Hillary...
My
Limekiller
You call us criminals, and you impose a tax on me for buying CD-Rs (that I use to backup my home directory on), and you flood our p2p networks with garbage and dDoS attacks to make it difficult to use them for even legitimate purposes, and then you throw all kinds of legislation to congress and all kinds of pressure to tech companies to make fair, legal things I do with my computer illegal, because "I might" do something "bad" (i.e., not in the interest of keeping your pocketbooks full) at some point in the future. And now, you want to charge me even more?
Hilary Rosen, congratulations. You will no doubt be the first against the wall. I sincerely and wholeheartedly extend this "Fuck you" into your general direction.
Then I'll start downloading pirated music, which I don't do currently. I don't have a single file-sharing app on my PC (unless you count MSN, FTP, et alius) and don't use those for much other than moving around source code..
But if they make me pay an ISP fee to download pirated music, and they reap profits from that, isn't that the same as selling me the right to download said music? As far as I'm concerned, it is.
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
So in the analogy world, is that kinda like...
The RIAA charges NJ Transit because apparently, some people from NJ are going to Tower Records in NY to steal CDs... but the thing is... They're using NJ Transit to do it!!! Bastards!
Heh... so... is that the appropriate analogy here? Any other fun analogies out there?
Guess they REALLY need that 6% back huh? heh.
Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
If this goes through it sounds like dictators are running the show. Yes, it is that bad. What will be next? A special fee for everyone because Ashcroft doesn't think the Americans give enough at church? Or a computer fee for Microsoft because everybody pirates their software? How about a fee for every computer to pay off the software companies?
The RIAA needs to be killed off, it is bad for the people. It is no longer about music, not even in the least. Those of you who are allowed to vote in the states, make sure you vote for people who don't support the RIAA...
They're planning on charging the ISPs and telecom companies for giving us access to file sharing networks. So instead of money changing hands (since internet access prices are already pretty bloated and they won't want to pass on additional costs to the customer at risk of losing business), the ISPs will probably just start port blocking and not pay the RIAA. The RIAA can't charge them retroactively. What never makes sense to me is that whenever these charges come up, shouldn't it give us a guilt-free pass to pirate music since we're now officially paying for it?
They're going to milk this whole "sales going to be down 6%" junk for all it's worth. I bet we'll see it in every related article until 2004.
Charge me $10 a month for pirating, and I'm licensed to download what I want. Let's see if *anybody* buys music once it's legal to download it. I can't see how this is going to make them extra money. In fact, I think they'll lose money. Why would -- hey...
Let's let them do it! Would you pay $10 a month for a year if it made the RIAA drown in their own stupidity?
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
Let me see if I get this right:
1. Complain about piracy
2. Lets charge per tape because we have our music pirated.
3. ??
4. Profit!!
5. Complain about piracy
6. Lets collect tax from ISP because we have our music pirated.
7. ??
8. Profit!!
9. Complain about piracy
10. ??
11. ??
12. Profit!!
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
I'm not sure if this post will end up funny, insightful, informative, or interesting, but here goes anyway.
1) The name Hillary has serious connotations to it. I immediately think of annoying, overzealous, stuck-up bitches like Ms. Clinton and Ms. Rosen.
2) Every CD-R disc that you buy is taxed and portions of the money you pay are given to the RIAA and similar organizations. So don't tax my Internet bill as well, and don't take my portable MP3 player either. Some of us actually use our own bought music to listen to.
3) With every new inane law or result of a lawsuit that I hear, I get one step closer to leaving the United States. It's becoming a bloody corporate rape scene here in the States and I for one am just about at the end of my rope.
4) Corporations should not control the government. We need to run the country, it's supposed to be our government. Let's let the citizens reign free and make America the best country it's ever been but without excessive taxation for wanting to listen to music or chat on the Intranet.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Pretty little packages...
Here's a better article.
:P
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-981281.html
In it, HR's more sane suggestion is to urge
"major music labels, which include Sony Music, Warner Music, EMI, Universal Music and Bertelsmann's BMG, to ease licensing restrictions, develop digital copyright protections for music and invest more in promoting subscription download services."
Sounds like a good plan to me.
The only thing she forgot was the "oh and offer music at a fair price"
Sometimes it seems paraphrasing is the main source of news on Slashdot.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
The recording industry already has a tax on most computer media in Canada.
It's already 21 cents per CD, and is going up to 59 cents soon. There's also a fee of 21 cents/megabyte for digital camera memory and tiny HDs because they can also be used in mp3 players.
Taxing ISPs is probably just the next logical step up here
Jason
ProfQuotes
They already have gotten away with that (them and the MPAA). They got a price markup on audio cassettes and video cassettes, to pay for the pirating, and no one complained about it.
Imho, this sort of thing just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want. If I'm going to be paying a markup for it, might as well take advantage of it.
Oh, and I haven't bought a single music CD in the last 3 years. And I'm proud of it. Once a system is in place to pay money to artists directly, I'll put some money in towards the artists I like. Until then, I ain't paying squat.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
wrt Kazaa and the like:
"It's clear to me these companies are profiting to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. They must be held accountable," Rosen said.
When did I give Kazaa money again...?
And consumer backlash about bad files, worms, etc? P2P is mainstream. Knowledge of what the **AAs are doing is not mainstream. I got some no-RIAA and no-MPAA stickers from ThinkGeek awhile back. Every single one of my friends (who all use P2P programs) had to ask what those 2 organizations stood for. Very few people who use P2P know about the **AAs and what they're doing, so how can they be pissed about it?
live(free) || die;
Registrant:
RIAA (RIAA-DOM)
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW #300
Washington
DC,20036
US
Domain Name: RIAA.COM
Administrative Contact:
McCaffrey, Howard (HM66) hmccaffrey@RIAA.COM
Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
202-857-9618 (FAX) 202-775-7253
Technical Contact:
Global Network Management Center (VXGTRUVDOO) rm-hostmaster@EMS.ATT.COM
AT&T DNS Service
3324 Hollenberg
Bridgeton, MO 63044
US
314-264-9672
Fax- 314-264-9647
Record expires on 26-Oct-2005.
Record created on 27-Oct-1994.
Database last updated on 18-Jan-2003 16:42:22 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
DBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.128.106
DMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 12.127.16.70
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
"just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want"
and ths makes me triply motivated to rip and put up my CDs for download. until now I used to allow only 1 user at a time to download from me, but now I will make it 10. look for kazaa user oggfan.
You, sir, are either a troll or a moron. When you pay taxes to the government, it's because you use their services. I buy maybe 3 CDs per year. Not because I am a pirate, but because I don't like anything that I can buy. Now why should I, a broadband customer and legal owner of my entire playlist, be forced to pay for a service just because I happen to have an internet connection?
Fuck that.
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
It's not about money, but pressuring ISPs to disconnect users or block sites. It's a logical extension of their letter writing campaigns to schools, which were mostly successful at scaring universities into blocking/punishing. Schools are ISPs of a sort, after all.
The IT slump of the past few years has led me more into more time of a consultant than a full time admin. I have several clients who pay me a small monthly retainer in case anything goes wrong. I make a little less cash, but then again I can work on other projects.
//s, and we all use linux, so whats the problem? Don't give me the argument about you ain't got the time to rip it? You had the time to poke around the net and download the song ten times till you got a good rip?
When I go in to a company and check a network out, top to bottom, server to workstation. I 99.9 percent of the time gigs of mp3's, pirated applications, and everyone has Kazaa. And for the next week everyone hates me cause I disable downloads, remove kazaa, block ports, and lock down the network. Not to mention find that some savvy employee is running an ftp server, or using company bandwidth to sell his wifes beanie babies.
I also am an on call tech for Dell. Usually this is installing new systems, doing data transfers. In short making the new system mirror the old one in software and data.
I have yet to hear someone say" Yeah all those mp3 are from CD's I own" "Here is my original copy of office xp" I get handed burned CD's and hear things like "dude you can get all the music and software you want off the internet." And this is not teenies nor young adults. But people into their 50's. I will not install anyting from a burned copy and a scribbled down serial number. They get burned, they are gonna point the finger at me.
I love my work. But if I had a dollar for everyime some client calls me to fix something, install something and then teach them how to download(steal) music and software. I would be a rich man.
I download music. I can remember the last time I bought a CD.2 years ago. I can always claim that all the Cure, Bill Idol, 80's hits, on my hard drives that I did once on the LP(probably in moms attic) so I am entitled. I gess if I wear out my copy of Nueromance, I can just go take a new one, free.
Recently I did a an 8 station wireless network in a wealthy mans house. Plus two laptops. The house is a Kazaa nightmare. Guy can afford CD's but he doesnt buy them.
I think the government shouldn't regulate or charge for info, but I think we on the internet have proven that we pirate and steal like crazy. I am a 33 year old admin, old fart in the business. I have many colleagues, and we pass warez around like crazy, and giggle about it. But we admit it. We do not try and take the moral high ground.
I am tired of hearing about all this bitching about our rights are being impugned. Why dont we all petition our ISPS to block all file sharing services? Doesn't take much CPU to rip a CD. We were doing it on P
Jeez, maybe I am getting old. But Kazaa is a pirates playground, edonkey, gnutella, and others.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
This isn't a new law.
This isn't a bill that's on the president's desk.
This isn't a bill that has passed the House.
This isn't a bill that has passed the Senate.
This isn't waiting in committee.
This hasn't even been proposed in either branch.
Hillary cannot propose it in either branch, she hasn't been elected.
Hillary isn't even running for office.
This is so far away from being a law, it isn't even funny. Nobody with the power to make this a law has come forward supporting it. If Fritz Hollings picks it up, then we can be a bit concerned, yet he still needs to convnice a lot of other people this is a good idea before it goes anywhere.
Let's not get too worked up on this one. Keep it on the radar, sure... but there are a lot of other bad ideas that have gotten further in the assembly line than this one, and those are the ones that need our attention.
Not able to get music?? Did music not exist before the RIAA? Did it not exist before Tin Pan Alley, and Casey Casum's top 40 lists?
Brother, I think the question is, where has the music GONE?
There was a time when an artist expected to get paid for his performances of music, and there were many artists, and most of them played regionally. Some of them made a living, most of them didn't. The ones that didn't just enjoyed playing.
Well, these days, some artists make a living, and most of them don't. They tour internationally and expect to get paid for their performances. The only difference now is that the industry (not the artists) take such a large cut, that for an artist to hope for a profit, he must sell in the millions or be worthless.
Where has the music gone? It has gone from being of the people and by the people to being cut up and served from a few mega-stars to the masses who will never have any personal connection to the music they listen to.
In my opinion, therefore, they death of the RIAA *would* be the end of the music world as we know it, and I feel fine. Bring on the new and creative talent!
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
My mother, a standard consumer with nearly no knowledge of how to go about pirating music or burning CDs, pointed out something very simple to me. She said that the price of CDs was the big problem, not the economy so much, and not piracy.
She pointed out how when Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Target have sales on CDs where the price drops quite low, say $10/CD, they sell out of the popular CDs. She also pointed out that in order for everyone to get paid reasonably, the cost to produce a CD would be about $5.
So, when you spend that incredible $20/CD, what are you spending that money on? Padding the pockets of shareholders and paying lawyers chasing "piracy".
My suggestion? When the CDs go on sale, buy 'em. Buy when they're low to show that you WOULD buy them if the were reasonably priced. Of course, getting the CDs you want may be tough then. Additionally, buy used CDs. Buy whenever the music hits a price you consider reasonable. Continue to support your favourite artists by buying t-shirts and going to concerts.
They should really teaching these marketing people some real economics courses. Supply and demand aren't just a simple cross on a chart when you add in alternative methods of obtaining materials. Sometimes crime does pay. Maybe we should have politicians look at it too.
"People are inherently selfish, but still they like to look morally upstanding in others' eyes. No one wants to be the bad guy." -me
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Ha! It's not theft if I pay 10 bucks a month to my ISP to pay for it.
I always learn about artists from friends, fan websites, and recommendations on Amazon.com, none of which are funded by the RIAA. Sure, if you only buy the latest pop crap, you might be influenced by RIAA advertising, but a lot of us on here listen to music that the RIAA doesn't bother advertising. I feel no moral compunction to pay extra for the RIAA to advertise Britney Spears crap that I don't listen to.
As for the markup, what would you argue? That people should pay the RIAA markup on CD-Rs and then pay again for the CDs at full cost, a price which is illegally fixed at an artificially high level as has been proven in a recent court case? You really think there's something wrong with downloading music for free when you already paid for it by purchasing blank CD-Rs which you need to backup your software?
Most of the artists I listen to have nothing to do with the RIAA, and most of the music I listen from them doesn't even come out in CD form. For instance, I listen to a lot of swiss trance and progressive trance, and most of what I listen to in that genre is live sets recorded from the radio. The RIAA has done fuck all to put that in front of me (thank god, maybe it would sound more commercial if they had).
As for the so-called artists à la Britney Spears that the RIAA does expend a lot of effort on, to get them in my face whether I want to hear about them or not, those can go rot in hell. If they all go bankrupt I'll be happy. Finally the airwaves will be free for the types of artists which don't need multi-million dollar marketting campaigns to be listened to. And there's plenty of those, believe you me.
Anyway, in answer to you and the AC before, you, on the theft thing: Theft would be for my benefit - I'm doing this to do my bit to help the RIAA go bankrupt. I'm not making any financial gains by letting other people download my music, so if I'm stealing, where's it going? Huh?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
... and you're charged every time you buy a blank CD, audio cassette or mini-disc.
21 cents per blank cd, 29 cents per audio cassette, and 77 cents per minidisc.
And the Recording industry wants it increased (a 181% increase for CDs), and wants it added to additional media (flash memory cards and DVDs) as well as to MP3 players.
Ironically, none of the money has been paid out to any artists.
1) It's legal to have an mp3 if you've paid for the music
2) CDs are used for things other than music
3) Flash memory cards are used in dozens of things; I have a digital camera that uses them.
The last time the levy was raised (Jan, 2001 I believe) I wrote letters to various Members of Parliment hoping to get it shut down.
This time, even the retailers are getting involved.
The music industry is a dinosaur. I believe artists should be paid for their work, but the cost of a CD is ridiculous; that money is disappearing into music executives pockets; the artist gets next to nothing. I would pay 30 cents per MP3 to download. No shipping, no retail costs, no packaging. That should be fair.
Wouldn't it be nice if Red Hat or Mandrake or Suse sued the governments (in those countries such as Canada and the U.S.) where funds are given to "musicians" for every cd purchased. I don't file share yet must pay a fee for each cd I purchase ... 59 cents each. At 3 cds each for my Mandrake and RedHat distributions (which I can download for free but must pay a "musician" to burn) that would muliply quite rapidly when you consider the number of North American open source user.
It is quite ironic that an Operating System is offered to me free of use but I must pay a "Musician" for the right to copy it. Mandrake goes bankrupt. These may not be large number of dollars but the fact is that they are being "pirated" by the music industry from the Open Source community.
So where's our say when these fees are levied? When quasi-governmental agencies lobby for (buy) special laws favorable to them? Is there a price sheet somewhere? They won't be happy until this is officially the US of *AA, and everyone has to bow humbly to their Imperial majesties in Hollywood.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
This is only true if you are only interested in mainstream acts (and even then, it doesn't need to be true). None of the music I listen to has anything to do with the RIAA. In fact, I don't think I've listened to an act on an RIAA-backed label in years. I don't need the RIAA to tell me what to listen to; especially considering that they and their lackey labels are complete morons and wouldn't know interesting and artistic music if it came up and bit them on the ass.
Ultimately, that's what the RIAA cares about much more than people copying CDs. They've enjoyed decades of dictating what people get to listen to. Now, their uselessness is becoming clear. There are plenty of ways to find music that you like (All Music, Ptichfork, mp3.com, etc.) and you don't need the RIAA for any of them. In fact, you just might find that your musical interests are invigorated by getting away from all that mind-numbing, mainstream crack.
The internet, and particularly p2p, has irrevocably changed the way I listened to music and exponentially expanded my musical options. If the establishment wants to brand me a criminal for that, so be it. Just look out, cuz once I'm already a criminal, who knows what I might do. ;o)
1.) The right of taxation is reserved to governments only. Private organizations (like RIAA) do not have the right to tax. So, your "taxation analogy" is out the window.
2.) A large portion of the money you pay when buying a CD goes directly to RIAA. Now RIAA is proposing that ISPs force their users to pay a fee, however indirectly, to RIAA. So, you the user are being forced to pay twice for products you've already bought. To follow your "taxation analogy," this would be called "double-taxation," which is illegal. Again, your "taxation analogy" fails.
3.) RIAA is not accountable to the tax-paying public, because they are a private company. You and I have no voice in how RIAA performs its functions, yet they are demanding the right to "tax" us for merely using the Internet, which -- I might add -- they had no hand in creating or maintaining. Once more, following your "taxation analogy," this would be called "taxation without representation." Your analogy falls flat on its face, mortally wounded.
4.) You state in your argument that, for your taxes paid, you get a set of services in return provided by the government. True. This is the balance of taxation. However, you get nothing from RIAA in return for the fee they propose to force upon you. That is not taxation; that's theft. So, once more, your "taxation analogy" is bogus.
"The dead do not shoo-bop-aloo-bah." -- Kai, 'Lexx'
It's not being charged a fee to get into the club. It's being charged an extra fee to take a taxi to the club because you might slip in the backdoor and avoid the cover. More than that - it's a tax on cab fare, because of all the people going to clubs! It's not a fee that you can avoid by not downloading music - it's a flat fee that everyone will pay, just like the tax of blank tapes and audio CDs.
i agree with you... it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
however, i don't think that'll work in this case. if, say, 25% of American music lovers stopped buying CDs published by companies in bed with the RIAA and everyone stopped pirating music... it is my guess the RIAA would still blame bad sales on piracy. it's an easy excuse that execs can use instead of sticking their necks out and going "maybe things need to change."
file swapping will continue to be the RIAA's excuse because it's easier than the truth.
Personally, I'd like to see artists paid out of some sort of slush fund for data tranfers.
You'd have something like the nielsens, which would figure out what people were downloading (by sniffing random packets or whatever - I'm sure the slashdot crowd can come up with a method that would work) and then reimburse whoever owned the copyright to a particular work preportionally out of the general fund.
The PROBLEM is that groups like the RIAA would see to it that the rules were stacked in their favor, so that they got all this money.
Does anyone know how much of the casette surcharge goes to artists? To artists who are not actually affiliated with the RIAA? I can't find an exact figure, but it's not frigging much!
I'd like to see a direct compensation scheme of the good sort in place, since it would allow people to make a living providing culture (which is good) and maximise the VALUE of that culture to society (since anyone could have as much culture as they wanted for a flat rate.)
Unfortunately, the blood suckers at the RIAA have both the power and position to suck such a scheme dry of blood.
While I was looking for a specific breakdown of how the 2%/$2 surcharge on blank CDs/CD burners is disbursed (I can't find it) I did find this interesting article which is worth a read.
The author has very much my take on the economics of the affair, although I disagree that piracy is "basically wrong."
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
isn't this what happens with sale of any other product? I mean when you own a store and lose a certain percentage of revenue to shoplifting, etc. typically you raise your prices to compensate the additional overhead to your business. In that way, the other consumers pay for stuff they didn't steal.
I don't want to see this happen either, but ther is precedent for it.
"It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
I must admit it's not insane to try to distribute a burden across a wide group of people, even if they object to the ultimate purpose. It's called taxation, and makes a lot of sense for a public good. Say, for example, a fuel tax to pay for the roads. Not perfect, but not insane.
:)
Maybe we're not taking socialism seriously enough. Here's a proposal: If the various labels want to impose a tax and distribute it amongst themselves (an entirely inappropriate and possibly unconstitutional thing for the gov't to be doing, redistributing for a private "good"), why not go whole hog and socialize the music industry. Then they'll get their tax, and we, through Congress, can decide how much of the take they get. No profits, of course.
Symmetry? Everyone happy? No one happy? Well, that's the point.
it's like saying "grocery prices are outrageous... to show my malcontent i'll go rob a grocery store". the legal way to show malcontent is to not purchase the product. if enough ppl do this, things change.
Brilliant example. If grocery prices were being artificially jacked up by a marketing cartel, farmers were being paid shit wages, and there was a 'tax' on gardening tools and fertiliser that went to the same cartel to cover loss of profits due to home gardening. even if you were only using the tools and fertiliser to grow roses and not vegetables. That's about where we're at.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Rationalizing theft? If this happens, people will be forced to pay their ISPs to pay the RIAA for music they may or may not download. You're paying for the "crime" anyway, you might as well get to commit it. It's not rationalizing, it's getting your money's worth for your ISP bill.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Except he was justifying copyright infringement, not shoplifting and/or robbery.
Copying music is legally wrong. It is probably morally and ethically wrong. It is, however, not the same sort of wrong as theft. The problem is complex enough already: nobody needs your loaded analogies muddying the waters.
Once a system is in place to pay money to artists directly, I'll put some money in towards the artists I like. Until then, I ain't paying squat
Time to put your money where your mouth is?
They do this, then artists not associated with the RIAA sue them for their fair share. Anybodny know the formula they decide for the payoffs for the CD-RW and R media?
This is the RIAA we're talking about, so...
Artist payout = $1
RIAA keeps for itself = [Total revenue from blank media tax] - $1
But seriously...hasn't Courtney Love shown righteous indignation at not receiving her 'fair share' from any of these taxes yet? As an insider, she is calling the RIAA's bluff -- she knows damn well that the RIAA isn't there for the artists, it's there for itself.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
The tax you have paid gives you the right to pirate, or doesnt it?
Well here in Texas it probably would. There is precedent with the taxation of marijuana. The state in it's wisdom placed a tax equal to the value of the amount of marijuana sold. This was back when weed was $25 per quarter ounce. Tax was $25 per quarter ounce. The only place you could get tax stamps was by going down to Austin IIRC and paying to get the stamps.
A while after this happened the police busted a guy selling weed. Every bag of weed this guy had for sale had a tax stamp affixed to it. In court this guy made the case that since he had payed the state taxes on the weed it was legal for sale. The court decided in his favor.
I'm not bullshitting you here. If you want to take the time to Google it you can probably find information pertaining to this case.
And whose fault is that? Why does the RIAA collect money from blank CD-R sales to make up for piracy, but not give that money to the artists?
"Imho, this sort of thing just makes me doubly motivated to go out and download all the music I want. If I'm going to be paying a markup for it, might as well take advantage of it."
The way I see it, if they charge me like that, then I'm paying for a service. They're basically saying "It's all okay". So yes, I agree with you, I'd take advantage with it.
What really irks me is that they've provided 0 way of legitimizing any MP3s we all have. They don't acknowledge that if you have a CD of a song that you're a legitimate user. They don't give you a way of purchasing a certificate or license for a digital copy of a song or CD. And if you delete your collection, they don't do anything to subtract that from their 'piracy' reports.
So yeah I'd love to pay a small fee for this, they'd have little room to bitch afterwards.
Too bad they won't try to make money by giving people an opportunity to legitimize what they have.
> And the money still doesn't go to the artists....
Sure it does.
That money is going directly to the people the artists are allowing to represent them.
Its the artists fault for choosing thieving scum to represent them in the first place. If the artists would stop doing this, the whole situation would get better.
Let me comment on how I see this (if you don't like my view don't take offense to mine..share your own).
One thing that I find to be a common truth. Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
1. Let every see that they are paying $xx for sharing music and they will react as if it is a license to download, not as paying retrabution.
(Result: more downloading, not less)
2. "Tell you what. I'll give the RIAA and MPAA each five dollars a year if they'll simply stop trying to sue and get file sharing banned or whatever they're doing." by Renraku (518261)
- Any before you know it they will say $5 is not enough, it must be $10. There is another word for this...extortion. Don't give the RIAA/MPAA any ideas...they will become the "Jesse Jackson" of the music industry.
(Result: The attitude "Fuck the industry, I'll just download it.")
3. "My mother, a standard consumer with nearly no knowledge of how to go about pirating music or burning CDs, pointed out something very simple to me. She said that the price of CDs was the big problem, not the economy so much, and not piracy.
She pointed out how when Wal-Mart or K-Mart or Target have sales on CDs where the price drops quite low, say $10/CD, they sell out of the popular CDs. She also pointed out that in order for everyone to get paid reasonably, the cost to produce a CD would be about $5." by bildstorm (129924)
Your mother has just pointed out a basic fundimental of economics(and marketing). If it costs $5 to make a cd...I sell for $10 and you sell for $15 not only do I sell out, but many people will buy two because the cost only ends up being $20. (To prove this theory just go to Best Buy on Sunday.)
Result: Selling more cds
Food for thought: Do stores make more or less during sales?
Spelling and grammer errors should be ignored..unfortunately my secretary won't type my Slashdot posts for me.
I support my favorite artists by going to their concerts and buying their non-mainstream CDs out of the trunks of their cars. They mark it up from the 20 cents or so they pay for CDRs to $10, and this way I know for a fact they are getting that well deserved $9.80. The absolute SHIT that the RIAA is pushing is not going to get a dime out of me, and tracks I do download are usually 20 years old from artists I at one time bought the CDs from (not personally, but from the store back when the music industry was less evil). Thing is, a lot of those artists that are putting out shit are only doing it because the record companies are forcing them to become pop dreck. When is the last time a Fleetwood Mac or a Pink Floyd quality gig came on the scene? Somehow I doubt that musical talent has diminished that much, I think the re-packaging is the real downfall of the industry.
- The word is a virus.
IBM owns the songs "2" through "9" and "A" through "F" and "SmileyFace", Bell Labs owns "-128" through "-1", "*", "#", and "13" through "127", the CCITT owns "128" through "255", Control Data owns "Negative 0". Digital Equipment owns "-32768"-"-129" and "256"-"32767", except that John Draper seems to have aquired performance rights for "2600" and somebody scribbled on the documentation on "31337", IBM owns "32768-65535", and by now that's covered all the songs you can play on CD. If they're thinking about using other standards, remember that the IEEE currently has all the floating point numbers, plus and minus infinity, and "Not A Number", so there's no place for the RIAA to hide except back in Analog Land.
And, surely if the music industry can tax us for possible downloads, we should be able to tax them for showing computers in their movies and using "computer hackers" in their plots, because they MIGhT NOT HAVE paid the Cyberspace Society of Computer Programmers, Hackers, and Stereotyped Nerdy Teenagers for using them. The tax obviously ought to be paid in movie downloads.
Besides, as a spokesperson for the Cable TV industry (I own about a 3-millionth of Comcast) it's important to remind the RIAA that most of the Cable Modem companies have strict policies against copyright violation, so our users would never do anything like that and she therefore can't tax us for it, and most of them also have strict policies running anything server-like, including file sharing software, which is bizarrely and suicidally clueless (Duhh, why do you think people buy broadband?) but also means that none of *our* users are doing this. However, we do know that the record labels and their "agents" often use the telephone to talk to their artists, so the telephone companies are as much a part of the music production process as the RIAA is, and we'd like our cut now, please.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
...what is the moral equivalence of the RIAA taking realized cash from people who do not download music?
I dunno, but so what? Feelings of moral superiority, by themselves, seldom carry the day.
Seems to me this is just an attempt to scare big ISP's into doing the RIAA's dirty work for them. At that, there'd certainly be a few challenges in court that would gum up the works for at least a while.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I agree with you -- but just one question. Is the blank CD tax a law? When did it pass? How? I would be concerned that this one can follow the same path.
It's well known in the industry, and heavily commented on by some musicians that *some* record labels have been known to rip off their musicians' music and other record labels have failed to adequately promote their artists' music. To make sure that that doesn't happen and that artists are properly compensated and promoted, Congress needs to pass a law requiring record labels to pay bands up front and not rip them off later and record labels to pay the internet industry to distribute anything that isn't in the Top 40. This is heavily documented statistically - the decline in Billboard ratings of almost every song that was in the Top 40 five years ago clearly demonstrates that the lack of adequate promotion by the record industry is interfering wtih artists' earnings and recognition. Furthermore, almost everything that *is* in the Top 40 is there because of record industry promotion, except for a smaller number of artists that achieve that popularity because of their artistic abilities in spite of the rampant failure to adequately promote them, and a much smaller number of songs like the Macarena which are clearly statistical outliers or badly collected data.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
What I would want with the $XX tax the ISP pays is the implied license to download as much as I want, and whatever I want. The same way when I pay a tax on blank tapes and music CD-R's. The piracy tax is already applied, so my "illicit" downloads have been paid for as long as I affix them to that medium.
If I give them compensation then I obviously expect something in return.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
The music industry is in a tailspin with global sales of CDs expected to fall six percent in 2003, its fourth consecutive annual decline. A major culprit, industry watchers say, is online piracy.
And all this time, I thought it was because that most of the music that is pumped into the market these days sucked. What was I thinking? I mean, when you think about it, it couldn't be the product that's the problem! That's simply not possible!
Rationalizing theft. I probably won't win anyone over by arguing about that, so I won't bother.
A fail to see why it's theft to do what I've paid to do. If I pay admission to a theme park, it's not theft when I get on the rides. If I pay for cable, it's not theft if I watch it. So, if I pay for downloading mp3s...
By the same token, it IS theft if the theme park charges me admission and then won't let me ride, and it IS theft if the cable company charges me for cable and then won't give me a signal. So if the RIAA charges me to download mp3s and then tries to stop me...
Per chance, does anyone know of any movements out there to have the major record lables indicted under federal RICO statutes?
Their current business model pretty much rests on bribery, extortion, fraud, theft, computer network tampering, price gouging, and price fixing.
If there is no such movement, perhaps we need someone to organize a website where we can weigh in on this. Instead of debating the theoretical and philosophical aspects of the issues, let's start going on the offensive. Let's begin exposing the RIAA for what it is. Letter and email writing to congresscritters and media types would be a good beginning. If a single major media outlet were to give coverage to the necessary topics, it would be a great boost to the cause. For once in the 20 years of corrupt business practices within the major media companies, let's put them on the defensive and make them justify their own theft.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Just a small point:
/anywhere/ are begging for free content... if, at least, they weren't contractually bound not to play it. Which, sadly, I suspect they are.
I might be atypical, as I appreciate my TV consumption is well below the average, but the following comment holds as true before and after I made that particular change in my life; I never learnt about artists because 'the members of the RIAA paid a shitload of money'. Generally, I almost always find new artists I like - in order - by word-of-mouth from friends, by chance (eg. turning up at a random gig or other and discovering I like it), by poking around the record store, or, recently, by internet.
Occasionally, I do find new artists I like off the radio or television - very occasionally - but really, if the RIAA are PAYING significant $ to get their acts on advertising-sponsored radio then I think they're doing something wrong (or, more likely, are victims of the payola they almost certainly imposed on themselves).
One thing that I know for sure is that at least in Europe, the idea that a musical act has to pay radio stations - especially small, local advertising sponsored stations of the few-hundred-thousand-listener variety - should by all logic be laughable. Like local newspapers, most local institutions
The point of all this being that, frankly, your RIAA - advertising - economics theory is part wishful thinking and partly true, but much of what makes it true is fall-out from the bad behaviour of the RIAA and its European cousins.
That's about where we're at.
That's right, and it's also why this is such an incredibly stupid idea. The biggest reason it's so stupid is that it a) penalizes people that have nothing to do with piracy, and b) creates a revenue stream that is based on nothing but speculation- it completely distorts important issues like market demand. If this is going to be the new game in town, then why don't banks ask for an special tax on cars, since they're often used as a means to escape after a robbery. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Absolutely agree.
If I go into a place like Circuit City or Best Buy, wander over to the CD section, and buy the soundtrack for a movie such as The Fellowship of the Ring, I can expect to pay about $17.99 USD. Yet I can now wander over to the DVD section and pick up the DVD for that same movie for $19.99 USD -- and there I get the whole movie plus commentary tracks, deleted scenes, documentaries, etc. The soundtrack is only a couple of bucks less and all I get is the soundtrack.
And yet Hillary Rosen and her goose-stepping Gestapo at the RIAA complain about falling CD sales figures and they have the nerve to act surprised. What's that you say, Hillary? CD sales are off? No shit, Sherlock.
The fact of that matter is that 90% of what the RIAA puts out is complete garbage and 100% of it is overpriced. They're well aware of this fact, but really don't care; they're more concerned about preserving their ancient sales model and revenue stream than they are about putting out a high-quality product for a good value. Perhaps that's why DVD sales are skyrocketing and CD sales are flat. DVD movies are cheap, high quality, and offer a lot of bang for the buck.
The fact that DVDs are outselling $20 CDs that only have one or two decent tracks on them should come as a surprise to nobody.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
"the typical /. poster sure smells like someone who just wants free music. So much for the moral high ground."
No, I don't want free music. I want reasonably-priced good music.
Last time I bought a CD, it cost me $25 canadian. That's WAY too much for a college student (one of the largest CD consuming groups) to be paying. If the RIAA is trying to price-gouge a group of people who have no money, that's just nuts.
If CD's were $10 CDN, I'd buy much more music, even if I only like 1 or 2 songs on the CD. Since they cost so much, unless I like the whole CD, I'm not buying it.
And that's another thing. If a CD sucks, I can't return it to the store, I'm stuck with a Frisbee/coaster/arrow target/whatever. The CD's that I have bought, I had on MP3 before I bought them. I bought the CD 1) so I can get better mp3 rips and 2) for cover/liner art.
Imagine being a deaf Internet user.
s/music/my webpage/g
s/music/a book/g
Copying music is not wrong: it is your intent of what you do with that copy that is the issue. In the US, it has been deemed a person can make an archival copy of items (music, software).. but if you then distribute that copy you have suddenly crossed the line into illegality.
(and for what its worth, I think the RIAA proposal is bullshit.. but if some people keep trying to justify p2p transferring of copyrighted works then you only give them more ammo.)
-'fester
Pirated CDs travel on roads too. Oh, and by boat. Trains too. Maybe we should impose a gas tax while we're at it. They should set up toll boths on the interstates!
Dear Mrs Rosen,
I was planning on purchasing two CD's tonight from TranceTrax.com The latest Orion and Leviathan releases however, after reading the tales of your latest bullshit I decided to donate $25.00 to the EFF. As a result I no longer have the extra cash to spend on those two CD's.
I purchase two CD's each month from TranceTrax.com which helps pay for the audio feed provided by philosomatika Since I an not doing this I will simply donate $10.00 to philosomatika instead.
Have you ever thought that maybe it's you who might be directly responsible for the 6% drop in sales?
PS: Check out www.dontbuycds.org
Rome, the highlight of civilization back in the day, even fell once corruption got it's grip on the once proud and functional government. That same government which the founders of Americas government chose to base it. Could it be perhaps that it is coming full circle again? Will America eventually fall as a modern Rome?
Copy-making Industry: "Mine! That's MINE! [stomp] Gimme more money!"
Public: "Shut the fuck up."
Congressman Lapdog duJour: "Let's step into my office..."
Slashdot: "Senate/House Extends Copyrights 5000 Years, Creates RIAA Tax, Mandatory Death Penalty for DMCA Violations"
Public: "Dammit. Whoa -- Look at Britney's tits!"
It has been known for a long time that the best, most profitable music and movies are made by people on drugs. And while most artists bear the financial burden of drugs through direct charges, insurance increases, legal fees, and shortened careers, the largest reward is reaped by RIAA executives who enjoy the fruits of artists labors without the associated early Cocane burnout. This is not a fair arrangement.
Therefore, it is proposed that middle-level management and above in all music-related fields be taxed at 4% of income, for the express purpose of using said money to fund such worthy prehab programs as Raves, House Parties, Bashes, Shindigs, Galas, Grateful Dead tribute concerts, and the city of Berkeley, California. In such a fashion, artists and music would be supported by those who have so far stolen their work without returning their fair share.
This levy would, of course, be void for any executive that could prove solidarity with the plight of the musicians through nosebleeds, swollen arteries, ADHD, or the propensity to use the word "Dude" as if it were insightful.
The ______ Agenda
You reap what you sow, and as long as those bastards resort to petty acts of cyber terrorism to keep their customers in line, they'll continue to be boycotted by me and hundreds of other like-minded individuals, and through association, any ISP adopting this "RIAA Tax" will be boycotted as well.
It's a sorry reflection on the legal system today that such criminals can hide behind the laws whenever they're being hurt. D:
It's been a long time.
Making sweeping statements about the average slashdotter and using your generalization to judge on their morality makes as much sense as assuming broadband users are a bunch of 'pirates' and using your generalization to charge them money.
I have never, repeat never, downloaded any mp3 that wasn't clearly licensed by the artist allowing me to do so. The RIAA is charging me, with every blank CD-R I buy, for acts of copyright infringement I have never committed, and are now suggesting a scheme which if it passed would likely have me pay a monthly maintenance fee for those same acts which I have never committed.
Hell YES I have the moral high ground!
No, that's still not the same.
When you steal the groceries from the shop behind the corner, you take it from the owner of the shop and he loses money spent on it. When you take someone's car, you take away his posession. When you photocopy a dollar bill and circulate it, you take away a bit of value from every single dollar bill on this planet.
When you copy music you don't do any of this. You don't deprieve original of its value, you don't take the money spent on its creation. There is very questionable point of lost revenue, but thats just it: it's questionable.
Go figure...
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Most artists that I know that have signed to a label did so when they were very young, 19-23, and had no clue about how business works. The the labels get A & R reps, who are "cool"-seeming young dudes (usually guys who were in signed bands that broke up) to hob-nob with you and convince you that the label is different than all the others.
Then these A & R reps get you to sign a "deal memo" which they will tell you you don't need your lawyers to read, it's nota contract. And it's not, but it's still legally binding. All it says is that you intend to sign a deal with the label.
Once you've signed, you're in and you can't really get out. The deal memo means that you can't sign with another label, and if you can't do that you are pretty much at the mercy of what contract they give you.
Sure, you could probably get a lawyer and get out of the deal memo, but a) these people are young and don't have lawyers or big money, b) the labels have better lawyers and bigger money, and c) the fear that other labels won't want you if you have a reputation for being litigous.
All in all, the deck is stacked towards the labels.
it would be 'pollution'.
You'd get a nasty fine and have to clean it up. There'd also probably be a civil suit from a group of local fishermen who want damages. The tea company that happens to make the brand you used will also take you to court for some sort of defamation. Last - once this hit the press, PETA would picket your house/place of business for abusing fish.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
I know this analogy is still slightly flawed; it's more like growing your own Monsanto roundup-ready-canola without paying Monsanto for the seeds. But it is nothing like stealing actual vegetables from a store.
Incidentally, you might want to do a web search and read up on roundup-ready-canola. Monsanto is just the kind of company that might propose a tax on farming equipment to cover their 'seed piracy'
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2