NARAS vs. the RIAA

sdbrian writes "An all around excellent paper concerning the National Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) and their position with regard to the RIAA has been published on Salon.com. The author (John Snyder) quotes from many articles that have been discussed on here on Slashdot. One of Snyder's conclusions, "NARAS should take the lead in this matter. Those who are taking it now are leading us over a cliff. The RIAA has staked out an untenable position that is as unrealistic as it is anti-consumer and anti-artist.""

Comments

The RIAA's first, and ONLY care

[SoVi3t]

...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.

Re:The RIAA's first, and ONLY care

[meatpopcicle]

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.

File sharing viable?

[Azureflare]

I think there is some validity to this position, because there is no possible way to get rid of filesharing, since people will always find ways around blocks...That is the nature of the internet. I've seen many posts on slashdot, and I know that many people would prefer to buy very high quality (i.e. lossless, or 320kbits ogg or mp3) for a small fee. The transition period, as has been noted, is very difficult. Change is always difficult, and the shortsightedness of the RIAA has not helped them. They are obviously either opportunists or vagrants out to steal people's money. If they truly were real business managers, they would find a way to make the current reality work. You can't change reality to fit what you want. This has been shown throughout history (which is also why wars have been fought, ahem, French Revolution). I think it is very good that we don't have to resort to violence to solve this conflict anymore; it shows how far our society has evolved. Anyways, I hope they can figure something out, because I'm tired of 128kbits mp3s off p2p networks =P

Anti history too

[Anonymous Coward]

If they keep pushing anticopy systems, they're locking, or better "setting a time bomb". Like Alexandria library, but centuries latter and with delayed fire. I hope in 200 years people will not point to us as the persons that left them unreadable culture. If it keeps going on, I know what new career will appear, Digital Art Restoration, with lots of classes about math, cryptography, and electronics, with the purpose of removing the "white paint that was put over the wall to hide the picture".

Re:It's all about the money

[Frater 219]

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".

The Gist

[crashnbur]

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.

Re:It's all about the money

[zmooc]

It's even worse - this isn't about intellectual property as we know it. This is about IP bought by large companies from small artists. So it's not intellectual property since it didn't come from their intellect but from their wallet. It's all just about money and stupid artists that really believe those large companies are going to do them any good while they only do a lot of good to a few and about nothing for the rest. Their marketing-machine (which is paid by the CD-buyers - the price of a CD is mainly for funding the marketing machine) is waaaaaay louder than that of smaller artists trying to do it by themselves and therefore these companies have by now replaced music with top40 and artists with stars. So I'll say it once again: don't buy CDs, don't watch MTV and if you're an artist: don't go to the big boys. They're crippling their own market.

Real artists don't mind if their work gets "stolen". They're proud it is so good people want to "steal" it.

Do the math.

[cmason]

Why doesn't someone do a study that correlates the number of CDs sold year over year to the number of new releases year over year weighted by the popularity of those releases (via some other measure, like concert ticket sales, etc.)? This might provide evidence to prove or disprove the common statement that record sales are hurt by the lack of fresh material more than by file sharing.

I'm tired of people (on both sides of the music sharing issue) trotting out the same rhetorical arguments all the time. There's nothing new here. Snyder's arguments about growth in other media don't prove his point; rather they show that the decline in record sales can't be blamed on the slowing economy. I believe I bought fewer CDs from major labels this year, not because I was downloading them from the internet, but because I wasn't interested in them. My money instead goes to new, independant artists (via CD Baby a fantastic way to buy music that doesn't make you feel like a criminal.)

I for one don't believe that we're going to (or that we should) do away with copyright. I just believe that the current music industry is going to be end-runned. I hope that we don't end up legislating it's continued existence. By that I don't mean that we should permit illegal file sharing, but that we shouldn't mandate a technological solution which only allows big media to create content.

-c