NARAS vs. the RIAA

Property? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The more this appears, the more I think about it as "lent" now "owned". Or can "owning" expire without any exchange? Damn immaterial things and lawyer speak.

It's all about the money by Big+Mark · 2003-02-02 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The RIAA has staked out an untenable position that is as unrealistic as it is anti-consumer and anti-artist."

It's pro-capitalist though, which is why it is allowed to exist. If some people weren't making a fortune then they wouldn't fight to let it remain.

-Mark

Re:It's all about the money by Frater+219 · 2003-02-02 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's pro-capitalist though, which is why it is allowed to exist.

And thus we have an excellent illustration of the difference between the interests of certain capitalists and the usual meaning of capitalism, the free market. The copyright regime allows certain moneyed interests to pursue what is economically called "rent-seeking" behavior: the pursuit of legislation and legal precedent for private benefit, without regard for its effect on other people's property rights or personal liberties.
Increasingly, it should be obvious that the "intellectual property" approach -- the discussion of copyright as a kind of property rather than as a special privilege granted to advance a particular public good -- exists solely to make this rent-seeking seem legitimate. If copyright is "property", then temporal limits upon it seem absurd; after all, we do not have limits upon the amount of time any other property ownership remains valid.
However, copyright is not property. It is a privilege granted by government, which permits a certain party (the copyright holder) to forbid others from using their own actual and physical property (e.g. hard disks, CD blanks) for particular purposes, namely copying the covered works. This privilege may well be legitimate insofar as it serves the public benefit, by encouraging the production of original works. Yet perhaps it is not so legitimate, in a period of history when evidently many artists and creators will create high-quality works whilst disclaiming any such protection. I'm not sure.
However, either way, this "intellectual property" talk has to stop. It's just a sneaky way of slipping unfounded assumptions (namely, that copyright is like property) into the public discourse. Let's call property "property", and copyright "copyright" -- and rent-seeking "corruption".
Re:It's all about the money by hastings14 · 2003-02-02 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I'm all in favor of curbing rent-seeking behavior and having a more balanced copyright system, the idea that intellectual property is not property doesn't make any sense. Property is anything one has ownership of (the right to exclude, sell ir transfer, and use). Thia makes intellectual property a type of property. Its true that intellectual property is not real estate (known in law as real property) but there is also personal property, and there is monetary property, and I'm sure other types as well I can't think of off the top of my head. Are you going to try and convince me now that the 1s and 0s that make up your bank account are not property because they exist as money only due to government regulation and you can't stick a fork in them? How about transferring it to me then!!??! Copyright is a temporary property right granted by government. How long that grant should be, or whether it should exist at all, is a subject for debate. In its current state, though, its property. Just as when my landlord grants me the "privilege" of using his apartment for a month in return for his monetary benefit, and government grants me the "privilege" of using a work I created in return for their benefit of me having created it. A landlord's "license" confers me no real property, but just the right to temporarily use his property. A better example is a life estate, if you're familiar with it (a person can legally inherit the right to real property, but only for their lifetime, then it passes to someone else as dictated by the original owner). In fact, a life estate in real property almost exactly mirrors a copyright grant in intellectual property, with the public domain serving as the recipient of the remainder after the owner of the life estate (the copyright owner) dies. I may be getting over a few people's heads here, but it would probably be more useful for a debate on intellectual property to not try and define it as something else, but to instead discuss what the specific rights, responsibilties, regulation and ownership periods should be...
Re:It's all about the money by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 12:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

If the artist signs a contract, giving rights pertaining to a given work to a company for given compensation, then it is a fair and legitimate deal in my view.

Noone is telling artist to sign up with labels, they could release their own work on MP3, fact is most do not. Perhaps the artists DO think they gain by signing with a label, otherwise why would they?
Re:It's all about the money by Blue+Stone · 2003-02-02 14:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you want a little evidence to the character of the music companies as regards their attitudes to money and their attitudes to the enjoyers of music, just look at the recent Brit Award ceremony.

Mastercard was signed up as a sponsor, but they made a condition of their sponsorship that only people aged 18 and over, in other words only those who could lawfully hold a credit card, would be allowed to attend the ceremony.
In previous years, all ages were allowed to attend, and this made a fairly happy time for the teenage fans of all the boybands, the music companies create and tout; getting to see their idols perform live, and share in their recieving awards.

The record companies, the creators of the award ceremony, caved to Mastercard's demands in return for their cash, and essentially gave the finger to all the teenage girls on whom their cocaine habit ultimately depends.

If that doesn't define them as scum...

...then an awful lot of other stuff does! :D

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

The RIAA's first, and ONLY care by SoVi3t · 2003-02-02 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

...is money. They have never once cared about the artists, or the consumers. Copyrighting songs was about protecting their intellectual property, not protecting the artists themselves, and their work. Whether it was suing Napster, or price fixing, they've proved that ALL they care about is the almighty buck. No other group or organization has ever been this greedy. The very fact that they seem to lump every human being on earth, into a single category of people that steal music for free, is proof they have no idea what is going on in the real world, and will be going extinct very soon. They just are afraid to let go, even though they know it's going to be over for them eventually.

--
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!

Re:The RIAA's first, and ONLY care by meatpopcicle · 2003-02-02 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why should they care about the artist? They are in business to make money by any means necessary. They have most artists by the gonads and make them sign contracts that are impossible to make money from.

This maybe OK for the big bands, but for the small guys it makes life impossible until they get a top 20 album. Once that occurs they have some clout and can negotiate better record deals.

I feel for the artists. The RIAA says "Its for the artists", but that has proven to not be the case. The RIAA needs to get a grip on reality and change their business model or they WILL become obsolete. What will happen is that the Artists will start using their own recording studios and sell their work over the internet directly, thus removing the need for the RIAA.

I will not feel sorry for the RIAA at all when this happens.

--
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Re:The RIAA's first, and ONLY care by SoVi3t · 2003-02-02 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why should they care about the artist's? Perhaps because without them, they are doomed. In all professional sports leagues, they employ various methods of protecting their investments, which in this case are the athletes. They make sure that anything they endorse, the athletes get their fair share. If an athlete is injured, they are taken care of until they are able to play again, sometimes going through numerous surgeries, doctor opinions, etc. Yes, I know that the RIAA is in it for the money, but that doesn't mean they have to blatantly ignore the musicians and the consumers. Virtually every other organization will attempt to find a way to keep it's consumers happy, as well as the artists/athletes/employees. The RIAA has done neither. No lowering of prices of music. No better contracts for the musicians. Just wasted time trying to fight a losing cause. They hope and pray that if they put enough money into copy protection, and legal battles, that eventually things will go back to the way they were 10 years ago. Unfortunately, things aren't going to ever return. P2P will preservere, and no matter how many are shut down, somebody will always know a person who can tell them about "the next Napster." Certain companies and organizations just don't fit into the 21st century, and the RIAA is one of them. Say hello to the dinosaurs!

--
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
Re:The RIAA's first, and ONLY care by HyperColor+Underware · 2003-02-02 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

They haven't done one thing that's illegal.

Yeah, so that huge price-fixing suit against them was a farce? Just spew whatever you think makes your arguement sound good out, chances are people won't bother to check your thoughts against reality. That's how it works for everyone else anyway.
Re:The RIAA's first, and ONLY care by RPI+Geek · 2003-02-02 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why should they care about the artist? They are in business to make money by any means necessary. ...

They should care about the artist because without them, they would have nothing to sell!

... The RIAA says "Its for the artists", but that has proven to not be the case. ...

You're absolutely right in two ways, depending on what "it" means.
First, the reason they can even exist is because the artists keep doing their job making music, then they try to make a few bucks by selling it. Without the artists, the RIAA would have no new material to sell, and they would die very quickly. Because of this they should care VERY MUCH about the artists.
Second, this whole about "protecting the artists property" is a load of crap. I don't claim to be an expert on how the industry works, but from what I understand, the artists sell their rights to the record companies, who then make CD's and sell them to consumers. If I'm right about that, then they aren't protecting the artist's music, because they don't own it any more!

--

- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"

Arguments against RIAA by Synithium · 2003-02-02 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

It goes to figure that the artists themselves would have to take the official stance against the facist ways that the RIAA tends to take. Consumers, while holding the majority of the power, take very little action. The artists (whom started this in the first place, btw) need to take the proactive stance to create a fairer system.

Re:File sharing viable? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 05:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

What if my HD gets fuxored? Will they let me download another copy to replace the damaged one free of charge after all I paid for a valid licence? I bet they dont.

Very interesting read.. by Crasoum · 2003-02-02 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ananova.com reported that 3.8 million DVD players were sold last year, double that of the previous 12 months. DVD sales reached 80 million last year, representing a 111 percent increase over 2001. Twenty million DVDs and 1.2 million DVD players were sold in December 2002 alone. The movie industry sold 1.6 billion tickets, taking in $9.3 billion in gross box office receipts in 2002, up 11 percent from the previous year, despite President and CEO of the MPAA Jack Valenti's recent statements that the future is bleak. Not since the 1950s have so many movie tickets been sold. Meanwhile, movie sharing on the Internet is at an all-time high. The movie business isn't suffering because of activity on the Internet. Quite the opposite -- the industry is making more money than ever! This is happening at a time when consumers are being offered more choices to view movies than ever before. This supports the view that people spend more money when they have more choices.

Makes a great point, as you give the public more options to choose from, you get more of the publics cash....

Maybe one day MPAA/RIAA will learn this...

NAAAAA it's easier to have congress protect them.

Re:Very interesting read.. by G27+Radio · 2003-02-02 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Makes a great point, as you give the public more options to choose from, you get more of the publics cash....

The public will spend more money if there are more options. The fear of the MPAA/RIAA is that most of those options are going to come from non-members. Until it became practical to download audio/video they pretty much had a lock on widespread distribution of their types of content. Now basically anyone can do it. This puts non-memeber entities on level ground with them when it comes to digital media distribution. Their business model requires them to be the only game in town.

So you see them being dragged kicking and screaming into online distribution. They don't want to do it, but they don't have a choice. In the meantime they do everything to make it harder for people to distribute content over the Net. P2P software (or any software) that makes it easy to find and easily acquire music published by just anyone is a huge threat to them.

They'd like to keep the options narrowed down to what they can produce and profit from so that they get all the money.

Re:It's all about the money. NOPE! by dada21 · 2003-02-02 05:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is not pro-capitalist, it is pro-mercantilist.

Capitalists (free market thinkers) are anti-government subsidies and regulations. Mercantilists are pro-subsidies and regulations. Do not get them confused!

I am a business owner, and I love competition -- it drives me harder to work to better meet my customers needs.

If I was the best in my business, I'd prove it by providing the best service possible at the price that my customers can afford. That is capitalism!

I don't want the government to subsidize my business and regulate my competitors' businesses. The RIAA is mercantilist. Do not allow these anti-business greenies steer you wrong. Capitalism = GOOD, Mercantilism = BAD.

A Building Momentum by monomania · 2003-02-02 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

This news seems to be in keeping with the gathering tedency of reactions I've seen -- it does put Hillary Rosen's announce retirement into an interesting light. I think now would be a great time for a serious, concerted and public stand from a united group of civil and cyber liberties groups. At the very least everyone who is on the consumer side of the issues should be making common-cause together. I think the momentum is with us, and not the RIAA.

Don't piss in their wheaties! by SuperDuG · 2003-02-02 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

The RIAA and MPAA are exactly what we need in America. These groups are looking out for copyright laws which means they are helping to protect the artists they represent ...

Wait one gosh darn minute there ... Don't the people who run the RIAA/MPAA own the copyrights to the stuff ... they're just looking to make sure they get every last sent out of someone elses work. Damn it and I thought they were trying to protect my intelectual property with all these strict copyright laws.

I think the artists (and no I don't mean britney) should take a stand ... and forget their old stuff and the souls they sold ... and move on and make some great new music they own the rights to ... I think the music industry needs to follow the book industry and be publishers, ONLY.

I'm tired of the MPAA/RIAA throwing billions of dollars to buy their laws, if they want to impress me they'd just shut the fuck up and lower the price of their shit.

--
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed

The Gist by crashnbur · 2003-02-02 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

A record executive and his son make a formal case for freely downloading music. The gist: 50 million Americans can't be wrong.

If that kind of argument had been the rule of thumb for deciding legality in America from day one, we would still have segregated schools, or even slavery, or, hell, we'd be the United Colonial States of the Commonwealth. Besides, 50 million doesn't even constitution 20% of the American population, so where does that stop? I suppose a better way to word it would have been to add this line: "What are they going to do? Jail us all?"

The meat of the argument is much better. Thomas Jefferson's belief in the free exchange of information (or ideas) to promote intellectual growth is what I have believed in since day one. Stifling the education process by prohibiting the utility of someone's ideas is not only detrimental to those who can't use the ideas, but also to those who hold claim to the ideas.

But at the same time, plagiarism is wrong. But why should utilizing others' discoveries be illegal if proper credit is given? I can't conceive any principle or moral factor that justifies that.

The problem with ideas, words, and anything related to the thought process is that they are intangible. They can not be proven to be the property of someone else, yet the patent office or whoever is in charge simply takes the first person to show up. Further more, any human mind is capable of innovative ideas that can benefit us all. What if it was my great-grandfather who originally came up with the Dr Pepper formula, but he didn't like the way it tasted so he discarded it, only for his neighbor to pick it up and start a company on it? Bad example, but it proves the point for me: it can not be proven that you're the one who worked to develop this idea or product, and it can not be morally justifiable to grant anyone the rights to prohibit the usage of such ideas simply based on the fact that they are the first to go public with it.

Information, ideas, innovation... All should be public and free to exchange. Prohibiting such exchange is prohibiting the advancement of the human mind and of the human race. We would be in much better shape if we did not have legal institutions in place for restricting our rights to apply our own thoughts.

What an excellent article... by NewbieV · 2003-02-02 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's a shame we can't moderate Salon articles... the author seriously deserves a +1 Insightful...

--

"For every right, an equal responsibility..."

they are leading us into the prison society by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 06:33 · Score: 0, Insightful

The war on drugs boosted the prison population to 2 million + and counting, but that's OK because they're mostly black.

Now, the war on piracy threatens to put all those white kids in the slammer, and you get upset.

Gotta luv American judges, though. Always up to the task.

"an educated consumer... by mechaZardoz · 2003-02-02 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

...is our best customer" as one clothing retail outlet put it, is the word of the day in music as well. The cat's out of the bag when it comes to the value of published music content. Online discussion, trading, browsing... have created a more discriminating and knowledgable music listener.

Like books that one 'must read,' the body of good music is vast. And the array of lesser music perhaps even larger. It's not surprising really that out of sheer defense, if not more educated musical pallettes, that people consult music info sites, trade music (and maybe quite frequently delete them) and make more targeted purchases.

If anything, the recording industry should examine trends in shared music and find out what the consumer really wants. And why this isn't being fulfilled by the current state of affairs.

They are not pro capitalist by Sophrosyne · 2003-02-02 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wouldn't say it is pro capitalist. The RIAA has a sanctioned monopoly in their business. The business model has more in common with prostitution, the "artists" are promised the world but forced into debt by their publishers, and are forced into more agreements and debts. It would be similar to an office worker becoming instantly in debt to his employer because he needs supplies (like a computer) to do the job you just hired him for, but why not charge him for the marketing of the product you're going to sell, and also make him responsible for the shipping of your product- after all they all cut into the bottom line... In a true capitalistic economy competition would allow artists to find better publishers (which does happen) and if the RIAA had competition we would see new business models that would force the RIAA to compete and change the way it treats consumers. Monopolies go against the idea of capitalism, where it is in the best interest of a company, or trade association to look out for the "well-being" of the consumer-- and obviously keep him/her happy enough to buy your product.

correlation, causation by nyet · 2003-02-02 11:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

First off, you provide no evidence that your correlation is direct evidence of causation.

Secondly, and more importantly, history is replete with DIRECT counterexamples of the assertion that IP laws stimulate innovation.

Innovations in airplanes did not occur until the US invalidated them soon after the onset of WWI

Innovations in the gun did not occur until Colt's revolver patent expired, even though Browning (and many others) had almost immediately improved on the original revolver design significantly. Patent law prevented any such advances from seeing the light of day for decades.

These are just two examples of the most obvious (and famous) patents stifling innovation; an even CURSORY look at the history of "successful" patents will give you example after example of innovation coming to an almost complete halt during the life of a patent, only to resume again after it had lapsed. To further illustrate this, in endeavors where the patent holder was succesfully able to extend his patent, innovation similarly died off again.

Note also that this effect of patents is ENTIRELY intentional; all competition is supposed to be stifled until the patent holder has "recouped" his investment. This is a "functioning" government enforced monopoly.

Also, note that "intentional" does NOT imply constitutionality either. That has more to do with the lobbying activities of rent-seeking corporations...

It sounds more like communism to me. by edunbar93 · 2003-02-02 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

One of the points made by this article is that these companies aren't just trying to keep people from stealing from them like they say they are.

"The RIAA and the music business are trying to legislate profitability."

Essentially, what they're doing is creating a structured economy that pays tribute to them. They're trying to legislate away all the things that it thinks are causing it to lose money. This is made ever more clear by how Canada's government has dealt with the issue: charge a tax on all blank recordable media to be paid to a large, amorphous blob called "The music industry," regardless of whether or not they're selling products that we even *want* to buy.

Perhaps communism isn't the best term for it, since after all, under a communist government there's a social contract between the people and the government that directly controls the entire econonomy. That contract basically says that the people gives up their free will in return for benefits such as a guaranteed job, and guaranteed health care, and other such. Instead, this contract with the RIAA says basically we've given up the right to free choice about what products we buy and we pay for them anyway.

What the RIAA wants is a total dictatorship over music and music consumers. That's not pro-capitalism, that's Evil.

--
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert

Re:drag and drop file sharing by kien · 2003-02-02 12:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

But what will come if the RIAA dies? What after that?

Excellent questions. While I don't have a crystal ball, I do have an idea of what could happen.

RL experience this weekend: I am an 80's music junkie. Pop, punk, bubble-gum...I love all of it. Relatively recently, a station opened here in Atlanta that plays 80's music only (thank you 105.3!!!) so that's pretty much all I listen to now. I was on my way to $somewhere this weekend and Pat Benatar's song "We Belong" was played on 105.3. My impulsive nature kicked in and I whipped the car into the Best Buy store that I was about to pass. I walked right by all of the artist-specific CDs and went straight to the "compilations" section. (I was a DJ at one time, so I learned long ago that it is not cost efficient to buy a CD for just one song.) Wham! Billboard's chart-toppers compilations for every year of the 80s. I looked over all of the 198x comp and sure enough, I found that song on one of those CDs. Price? $7.99 (USD). I got my song (with the bonus of having a lot more songs from that year that I also love) for less than half the price of a CD from a single band released today.

Based on this experience, I think (hope?) that the future of the music industry is a future where they offer songs (or even portions of songs) and let people vote. Based upon the outcome of those votes, they release compilation CDs with the most popular songs on them. I also think (hope?) that the artists themselves get more power and sell their songs themselves so that if I like the work of one artist, but most other people don't, I can just go get it directly from that artist/band. This is a radically different business model than what is in place today and it might have flaws that I haven't considered. But, based on my experience this weekend, I think it might be a workable solution where everyone (the artists, the customers, and the RIAA) can find a balance.

--K.

--
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.

26 of 183 comments (clear)