Slashdot Mirror
Lessig And RIAA Answer NewsHour Questions
Zeta writes "The answers are finally in! Stanford's Lawrence Lessig and the RIAA's Matt Oppenheim have responded to all the tough questions on copyrighted music, many from Slashdot readers, for the online part of the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Take a look - some of the responses may surprise you." We ran the original call for questions a few weeks back.
"just because a car is sitting idling and unlocked does not mean that you can get in it and drive it away for your own use"
The Riaa Guy
I'd let anyone make a perfect copy of my car and drive away with it if they'd like, I still have my car.
Better yet, dl the the show off kazaa and watch it anytime!
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
"I'd let anyone make a perfect copy of my car and drive away with it if they'd like, I still have my car."
Who'd want a copy of a Yugo?
"B. The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent. "
No, you jackass! Your sales are down for other reasons.. not illegal downloading.
1) Only so many bands can look and sound identical, before people need only buy ONE album and pretend it is five different bands.
2) Music sucks.
3) CD's are overpriced for what you get.. when Rush used to put out albums, five or six songs were GOOD and the rest were OKAY.. now your pablum barfing force fed musicians are wont to put out one hit, on a record that Im payign 16 dollars for.
4) see #2
5) ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!
Thank you.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Haven't read it all so far, but this is just blaring...
Nobody is really "sharing" as we traditionally think of the term. Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "Sharing" in the P2P context has become a euphemism for "copying." That copying is neither legal nor ethical.
So...why do they say copying music files is "stealing"? Nobody loses any physical property, nothing of monetary value, but yet "copying" is equal to "stealing" in their minds...
From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music
Yeah, and from an ethical perspective suing a student for creating a search engine and letting him go for merely all he's worth is just dandy.
"Ford," he said, "you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
The big thing I don't understand about the music piracy subject is why Napster was shut down and all these clones have sprung up, but none of them have been shut down. The Napster guy should have copyrighted P2P.
So, this guy's saying that we should let everything stand for a few years, and then all of a sudden companies are going to make things _less_ restrictive? No offense, but I'm not holding my breath. I wouldn't trust the major labels to do that for a second, much less years. If we let it go until then, the DMCA/UCITA-type laws will be firmly entrenched and fair use will have disappeared entirely in digital media. Anyone else want to wait for that to happen?
SELECT quote.text AS sig FROM quote NATURAL JOIN attribute WHERE attribute.description = 'witty';
0 rows returned
One industry you don't hear complaining about P2P sharing is the porn industry. Needless to say, you can get more videos and pics on file sharing networks, etc, than you can shake a stick at (not to mention posting on newsgroups). What's their stand on file sharing? It seems like they really could care less.
The RIAA is desperate because bands that used to make good records can't make any more. Why? Well, because:
1) they may not have been that talented in the first place, and/or
2) it's hard to be that inspired when you got 5 million bucks in your pocket.
Ever seen 5 million bucks? Most people, one they get that kinda money, go one of 2 ways:
1) they get super-greedy, and try to just make super-popular records, which flops hard at some point.
2) they just say "ok, i'm done" and that's it. The RIAA needs to realize that people are gonna listen to the music one way or another if 1) you can't hear it on the radio, and 2) the band's new stuff blows, or 3) if they want to hear something to see if the band's new record blows, which it most likely does. STILL, did Eminem go platinum? Yes. RECORDS ARE STILL SELLING IF THE MATERIAL IS ALL THAT GOOD/POPULAR! People really don't want the hassle of the internet, unless the material is hard to find elsewhere, i.e. at stores, or if they are unsure of the quality of the material, etc. DUH.
stuff |
It seems to me that one of the big reasons for people buying fewer cds is that they have become a major pain in the ass. Why should I go spend $20 on a cd when i'm I can't even play it in my computer, nor am I sure it will play in my car cd player. But that argument aside, my friends and I simply paid for a lot more cd's when it was easier to copy them. We would basically each go out and buy a cd or two a month, and burn copies for everyone who did this, and we ended up getting 6 or 8 cds. If the cd was really good then we probably all ended up buying it. Now it's a pain in the ass and you can't always do that anymore, so we think "eh whats the point" and just download off kazaa. In the end we as a group purchaced fewer cds.
This is really a moot point anyway, because as many people have said before, music sucks.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
You *do* realize that you are COPYING the article and not SHARING it?
Record companies don't want to lock music up -- after all, why would people buy it if they could not listen to it in the way that they wanted?
DOES THIS GUY LISTEN TO HIMSELF? If the RIAA wants us to listen to music the way we want, why don't they let us GIVE THEM MONEY for things like music downloads or at least some sort of "approved" form of media other than $25 CDs that we can listen to however and wherever we wish?
"Ford," he said, "you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
AMEN!!
Was he saying 'Amen' to the answer from the other person,
Or the question,
? ;)
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
Yes radio sucks, yes many riaa bands suck but there are definitely work arounds. I've bought more music in the last few months than I have in a really long time (mostly stuff from metropolis/different drum/emperor norton/spv and some european equivalents). Shoutcast has been a godsend for those of me , I buy records but the kids who run the radio stations on shoutcast provide a great way of discovering new music. Need decent non-riaa music for your car, leave a few shoutcast streams on overnight and rip to cd/rw while you shower and play it on your mp3 cd car player. Use opennap/gnutella/shoutcast whatever to find your new music but if you LIKE the ARTISTS and BUY THE MUSIC! Most of the smaller labels need you to do this to survive. I honestly don't think the smaller bands care if you've discovered them by browsing some kids opennap file share becase some friend of yours told you about some new ebm band called "brudershaft" and you want to know what the hype is all about. But listen to it, if you think damn this rocks, this shit should be on the radio, buy it, it wakes the radio stations up, it gets the peoples making all the cool new music the recognition they actually deserve and it'll make the radio stations not suck so hard.
-blo
It was kind of boring reading responses from Lessig and then from Oppenheim. I was hoping for more than just hearing them rehash the same old lines.
I would have much preferred hearing them debate. Now that would have been interesting. I'd like to see how each would respond to the other's various arguments. (Okay, so mostly I'd like to see Lessig rhetorically clobber the RIAA guy. But I don't think that invalidates my point about a debate being more interesting.)
I was loathe to read the RIAA response since its a given that the RIAA representative will lie like a spammer. But I was drawn to it anyway.
Every time the DMCA was brought up the RIAA guy said it was just fine because it promotes innovation, rental models, blah blah blah. And that there's that copyright office exemption thing that comes up every few years.
Of course, what he didn't mention is
1) The exemption doesn't do a damn thing for devices. Sure, you can break the copy protection mechanism... just don't build a device to do it.
2) The RIAA will lobby $trenuously against any proposed exemption which affects them.
Anyone else notice that when you surf the net for music files, you're messing with their intellectual property -- but when THEY surf the net looking for music files (and finding stuff which doesn't belong to them) it's not about property?
Matt Oppenheim (from the RIAA): Intellectual property should not be treated any differently than other property. Unless you buy it, you should not copy it for your own use.
Umm, the whole point of intellectual property is that it is treated differently than other property. If you buy something, absent copyright or patent law, you can copy it.
If intellectual property shouldn't be treated any differently from other property, why can't I take it apart and examine it without violating the DMCA? If they are to be treated the same, why can't I charge an admission fee to show it to my friends? After all, I could do that with my brand new Porshe, right?
The RIAA rep shot their entire propoganda campaign in the foot with this gem:
So, according to this guy, "sharing" only takes place when the lender doesn't have the shared book/CD/whatever available for their use. If the lender retains a copy, or the original, then it's not, "sharing," but, "copying."
However, the RIAA -- and, to be fair, just about every other intellectual "property" advocate -- often refer to unsanctioned copying as, "stealing."
Except... Wait a minute. Isn't stealing where you take a thing from someone such that, as the RIAA guys said, "the owner no longer has it?" Indeed, isn't the primary distinction between lending and stealing the consent of the owner?
So if, because the owner retains a copy, it's therefore not sharing, then how can they possibly make the argument in the same breath that's it is stealing?
Answer: They can't. They're trying to have it both ways. It's not stealing, it's copying, a distinct activity.
There's little question that it's illegal -- the lobbying dollars of the RIAA and like organizations have ensured this. Whether or not it's ethical is a question that is still being discussed, and is by no means a closed subject.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I am sick and tired of people comparing the sharing of music and movies as the same shoplifting or stealing a car. This is a ridiculous analogy on many levels, but my main gripe is with one level in particular: if you steal a shirt from a store, that store has suffered an actual financial loss. When someone downloads a music album from somebody else, the record company doesn't suffer direct financial loss to the same degree as if the product were physical merchandise that couldn't be digitally replicated. The record companies may suffer an "opportunity loss," if indeed that person would have purchased that album anyway (lots of people download music that they would never have spent $15/disc for), but that's not the same thing as losing the production cost and the opportunity cost.
The marginal cost of production for music, movies, software, and other intangible property is almost zero, and it's about time people took this into account before coming up with absurdly misleading analogies.
I pay property tax.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Matt's "amen" was directed at the person asking the question. It seems that Oppenheim and Lessig's responses were made independently of one another, without responding to each other.
Did anyone else besides me stop reading what Matt Oppenheim had written in response to these questions?
.05% of copyright holders!"
He should have just said:
"While lobbying for insane copyright extensions, suing kids, and whining about not milking that extra billion from teenagers over the last three years is generally not in the best interests of the public at large, it sure is helping us flog the last few drops out of a dying cow for benefit of the interested
And left me some time to read Lessig's well
thought out, poignant, and meaningful answers.
NMG
There's a difference, you are providing content on a public web server. This is obviously intended to be viewed if you haven't taken steps to prevent people from viewing it (password protection or a notice outlining the rights they have to access the material). The MP3 has been taken from a CD which has stated its' copyright claims, however the copyright notice has been 'removed' by the time you 'find' the MP3.
"Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works..."
This is obviously b#lls##t! Technology (internet, P2P, computers, software, electronics) have made it easier and less costly to produce and distribute ideas/music/etc. There are other things that I have found wrong in the arguments, but I don't want to spend all night typing them all out. Read carefully and question everything they say.
Question everything.
From Matt Oppenheim's comments:
On the Internet however, it is extremely easy to download and the audio quality is near CD. Millions of people now mistakenly believe it is legal. The RIAA, among others, has been trying to educate people that downloading recordings from unauthorized services on the Internet is, in fact, illegal.
Millions mistakenly believe it's legal? Do they really believe this, or is it just a good line? The truth is that pretty much everybody knows that downloading copyrighted music is illegal, and pretty much everybody figures it falls into somewhat the same category as driving five miles per hour over the posted speed limit, except that maybe speeding is a little worse, since it can actually hurt someone.
The RIAA isn't trying to convince people it's illegal; they're trying to scare people that they're going to go to jail or be hit with fines that are completely out of proportion to the offense.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Appropriate term. At least their own unique expression of art is slowly dying while they wait to have the chance for an audience. Not that this is the RIAA's fault totally - as any good conglomeration of companies, they merely react to perceptions about public interest, and perceptions about expectation of income. They have no place for promoting art in general, or offering a forum for untested or less-than-totally-popular art.
It's just sad that this indirectly puts them as such odds against any art that is not generating income for them.
Ryan Fenton
The main difference between these two:
Lawrence Lessig:
"The DMCA is an embarrassment to copyright law. Copyright law has always been about balance -- about the balance between restrictions and access.
The Constitution expresses that balance: it requires that copyrights be for "limited Times;" the First Amendment requires that copyright yields to "fair use." "
Matt Oppenheim:
"If you are attempting to distribute recordings that you own the rights to and the RIAA is in any way preventing you from doing so, you should contact us immediately."
Note how Lawrence Lessig focuses on balance, while Matt Oppenheim focuses on saying what consumers are allowed to do. (Lessig does not explicitly refer to people at "citizens," but Oppenheim does at least once refer to individuals as "consumers.") This shows their respective trains of thinking quite well.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
With people walking up and driving away with perfect copies, suddenly your car has no value.
If you are a car dealer, you're done for.
"Sufferin' succotash."
IANAL
The propaganda term "Intellectual Property" is a creative fiction designed to confuse two separate types of limited control granted by government.
1. Patents - A limited monopoly over the commercial implementation and distribution of a novel concept IN A PRODUCT. Patents represent a trade-off to encourage open distribution of the concept after the limited term of the patent. Note that a patent doesn't prevent someone from using a concept for their own use.
2. Copyright - A time limited monopoly over the commercial distribution of an authored work. The term is limited and this is traded by the government to encourage the creation of a large public domain. Note that this is intended to prevent PUBLISHERS from making money off of other publishers works.
Note that in both cases the primary motivation is creation of goods for the public.
The fiction is that it isn't property at all... it's a time limited grant of monopoly, and it's meant to expire. Property is a durable item, not a lease.
</ANTIPROPAGANDA>
What I am reading in these reponses is a whole rash of rationalizations:
Let's face it: We like the music and we want to use the technology that enables us to copy and share it over the Internet for free. We want the product, but we don't want to pay.
You can put forth all kinds of hypothetical situations where illegal and unethical intentions are not involved, but let's be grown-up enough to admit that getting something for nothing is 99% of what this is all about.
You know what I think ought to be done about it? I think that the RIAA ought to start putting their product out there so cheaply that people won't object so vociferously to paying for it. If we could pay 5 or 10 or 25 cents for a copy of a song (I can already see pricing them on a sliding scale -- with the most popular stuff being priced highest, according to laws of supply and demand, kinda), I think that most of us would do that -- for a multitude of reasons:
So maybe I'm too naive about this stuff. But it seems pretty clear cut to me. Making copies of CDs for anything other than your own use is illegal. Does that mean that everyone who does it should go to jail? Probably not. I DO think it means that the RIAA had better wake up and realize that they have a MAJOR problem on their hands, and revolutionize the way they do business, if they want to stay in business.
Sales are down over the last two years not due
to lost opportunities as a result of file sharing,
they are down due to the fact that CD TECHNOLOGY
HAS BEEN SURPASSED by magnetic media.
News flash: LP sales are down every year since
1990. You know why? Because CDs replaced them.
Well guess what? CDs are now yesterday's
technology... I can't fathom spending money to
buy a physical medium that's more difficult to
transport, less durable, skips, can't record,
etc. etc. etc. The combination of computer
digital media management plus affordable
portable digital music players have made CDs
OBSOLETE.
Jeesh. Wake up RIAA.
-Pez
"Personally, I agree with your comment about radio stations -- and I think that most record companies probably do too. We would love to have more variety on the radio."
f p_congress/ and other articles by that author.
This, at least, is correct -- sort of. According to Salon.com, the various companies pay $150 million per year to radio stations, through independent promoters, to decide what will get played on the radio. They're deciding to go for the same 40 hits, over and over again -- that's the kind of decision you can buy for $150 million -- but they hate it.
Why? Because payola shouldn't cost that much. It used to cost way less, but with Clear Channel holding a monopoly, the price per song has gone way up. They're trapped. No one record company can afford to stop unless they all do -- and if they all agree on that, it's collusion.
This leads to an interesting irony. The RIAA, as of the time this article was written, was lobbying Congress to mandate that pay-for-play be stopped -- "please order us not to pay $150 million each year to have our songs played on the radio." They were simultaneously lobbying Congress to mandate fees for streaming radio stations -- "please make sure we get payed whenever we let someone play our songs on the radio."
To my mind, the difference is choice. They'll pay a lot to make sure everyone listens to the same music; they see no particular benefit in having lots of different music available. This also indicates to me that, whatever this spokesman thinks, the individual companies have no desire for more diversity on the radio. They just wish they didn't have to pay so much to prevent it.
For more info: http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/06/25/p
There is one difference that echoes throughout the responses that both give to each and every question. At every turn, Professor Lessig gives deference to the needs and rights of the Artists and the Recording Industry in an attempt to find middle ground. At the same time, Mr. Oppenheim only recognizes the rights of the companies he represents, completely forgetting the concept of fair-use rights and the necessity of the public domain.
-R
The problem is that copyright is essentially unenforcible. Unless the people enforce copyright on themselves, you can't do it for them. Why do people enforce copyright? Because it's seen to be *fair*. You make something, you get to own it for a while, after that it goes into the public domain.
That's what's missing here. There is no "goes into the public domain." People are individually and unilaterally repealing copyright law, because it's not a fair law anymore. The people who make something never have to share it. That's not fair, because so much of what the creators do is stolen from the public domain (like all of Disney's plots), and just about every jazz riff.
If you're interested in the law, go read Bastiat's _The Law_. It will explain how a law is seen to be fair.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
their work became so popular (and a few pretty well known starlets got their start with these people) it spawned a newsgroup of it's own - a newsgroup that is pretty much dead now, because ALS sued the major carriers of that newsgroup, forcing them to police it or just remove it entirely. They've ALSo (har) been known to go after individuals who post their material. Occasionally you'll find some of their material in a newsgroup, usually either encrypted or renamed.
Ever heard of Suze Randall? Amateur & Teen Kingdom? Both these websites are (or at the very least were) enormously popular and they WILL go after individuals who infringe upon their material. One or two posts might not get one a DMCA complaint, but they produce prodigious volumes of porn and even a flood of three year old stuff (that's not even on their own website anymore) can land a poster in hot water.
This talk about the porn industry embracing p2p is only a half truth propogated, no doubt, by the industry itself as PR move to keep it in favor among its consumers. It's one thing in the public eye to steal from Mickey Mouse and the Olsen Twins - but another thing entirely when you're stealing from "lowlife pornographers." IOW they need to keep all the friends they can. Their "embracing" of the internet is largely in the form of limited collections with large banners and Microsoft (proprietary) format video and audio files that contain embedded links and scripts - basically just another form of popup ad (at least for the majority who don't disable such scripted security holes - er, I mean "features").
Hit a well maintained usenet server and globally search the binaries groups for PGP containers. If you look deeply enough (well, it doesn't take too much if you bother to read the peripheral discussions) you will find most of these PGP containers relate to the exchange of one of two forms: child porn, and commercial websites - like Suze Randall, ATK, and ALS. You do the math...
That being said, it would be interesting to see these two discuss issues with each other, rather then answering questions and not interacting with the other side.
Debates between two intelligent people like this are a relatively straightforward way of determining which argument holds up and which one was contrived for the sole purpose of masking another intent.
...and am not merely licensing it!
The only issue would be if you decided you wanted to download somebody else's copy of John Denver's Greatest Hits (which was likely from a CD, and a much higher audio quality).
Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording.
If they were licensing the song/or whatever to me, they shouldn't care where I got it, as long as I have a license. This says to me that they are selling me the copy, to do with as I see fit.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Thank you for looking at this topic logically and not emotionally. Personally I wished for a question related to the price of CD production and how it affects sales and the use of P2P networks.
Recently on /. link it was discussed how the cost of production software has dropped ($495 for the home version or $15,000 for the pro version) but it does not appear to have made its way to consumers. This particular point seems to slip through the cracks along with other obvious points of interest. The cost of burnable CDs has reached levels of 5 cents a CD for the consumer. Shouldn't this cost saving be available to large producers of music?
Personally I'm very selective of CDs now days because the prices have remained high. I still purchase CDs, but only rarely. Do I download songs off the net? Honestly, very rarely. And the songs I've downloaded are often songs I own on CD - I'm too lazy or uninterested in ripping the song. Of course I have found songs I always wanted to record off the radio or have a copy of because I could never justify $18 for one song as most music (in my opinion) is piss poor and often repetative.
Not that I've contributed anything new to the topic, but at least I've gotten my thoughts out. chichichi-a
Let's examine several of Oppenheim's outright lies or dodges:
Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it.
The question is, would he then support a virtual library of music, which purchases music/etc at bulk price and so many copies of it, and if it has 3 copies of song X, it allows 3 people to listen to song X from it's server at a time? The answer, I think, will be no, which would make him a fucking hypocrite.
when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music
Nope, wrong. There's nothign that says the individual who downloaded a song for free would have blown away several bucks to get that song on a CD. So his statement is incorrect.
AMEN!!, [in response to Lessig's statement that although the sharing of copyrighted files is illegal under current law, technology can not be made illegal if it has substantial noninfringing uses]
I must admit, I was at first pleased upon reading this response from Oppenheim. However, if Oppenheim -- who is representing the RIAA -- really believed that, then the RIAA wouldn't be trying to stop P2P developers and shut down P2P networks, or destroy these networks by flooding them with crap.
There are quite a few ways that these technologies can incorporate safeguards to prevent copyright infringement.
What Oppenheim conveniently leaves out is that it is almost inherent that any technology that filter's out infringing use will also filter out non-infringing use. Computer's cannot determine whether or not something is infringing copyright. Sometimes judges can't even determine that. Any technology which very efficiently prevents copyright violations on P2P networks will very severely eliminate legitimate uses.
The DMCA Anti-Circumvention provision is not intended to stifle technological innovation.
Intent is irrelevant. It already has stiffled innovation and free speech.
All that aside, the DMCA Anti-Circumvention provision has specific provisions built into it that exempts true scientific research.
Which obviously weren't good enough. See Felton.
every three years, the United States Copyright Office reviews whether specific exemptions need to be added to the DMCA to address this issue.
In case Oppenheimer doesn't know, the scientific community doesn't operate on a 3-year basis. There is extremely rapid turnover in the scientific community. Current knowledge today will be old knowledge a week from now. 3 years is a long time to slow down science.
The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make...Many copy-protection technologies include on a CD a second copy of the album in compressed form ready for transfer to an owner's computer
Never-the-less, the DMCA allows copyright holders to effectively circumvent fair use. It allows them to prevent something from ever being public domain (in addition to their bribery of Congress to retroactively extend copyright laws...fucking crooks). Simply allowing such an atrocity is inexecuseable.
irresponsible copyright holder makes a mistake, the DMCA has a process built into it for counter-notifications to be made in which an individual can dispute a take down notice.
This is Oppenheimer's response to the cease&desist questions. For the most part, I found his response here reasonable, but this is a half-truthed statement.
The DMCA may have such a process in it, but that's irrelevant. ISP's will automatically take down the sites of anyone accused of infringement, and they have to counter-claim etc to revoke that (because ISP's aren't liable if they do such). This is a bad
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
OK, this will probably cost me karma, but I gotta say it: I can't help but wonder if the last question, asked by someone who wished to remain anonymous, was posed anonymously to avoid admitting publicly to owning (and choosing to listen to) John Denver's Greatest Hits.
P.S. Volume 2???
I think discretionary income that people would normaly use to buy music is getting spread out in the music industry. Due mainly to the quick easy access to new artist.
It wasn't too long ago that RIAA would beg radio stations to play their artists of choice (top 40 anybody). Heck, they probably still do beg and pay kickbacks too. Remember when that was a scandal? They weren't too concerned about copying back then.
But radio airtime is a finite period to a finite audiance. While P2P sharing of music is a infinite period to an infinite audiance. (I use infinite quite loose here) I'm sure that back then, as it is now, it was cheaper to promote a big artist to concentrate in a few products rather then promote alot of artists across the board.
Now, with the P2P method of distributing music, I theorize that peoples tastes are diverging because of the easy access to non-mainstream music or even just older music. THey have more choice now and they are taking it. While tastes are diverging, the RIAA and the Industry still hasn't "got it". They still use thier old models in trying to promote a few stars. Look at the all the recent flops and huge contract dumps in the past few years.
They cannot control the tastes of music listeners anymore and their tastes are diverging. Making it more and more expensive for the Industry deliver. It will get worse before it gets better (read somebody in the industry comes in with new ideas). They are still trying to sell 10 million records of one artist, while what they really need to be doing is concentrating a couple of hundred thousand records each from a bunch of artists.
It's not even a fun show anymore... they've become complete bores; the tribe has spoken by the millions: it's time for the men in the sharkskin suits to leave the island.
The only issue would be if you decided you wanted to download somebody else's copy of John Denver's Greatest Hits (which was likely from a CD, and a much higher audio quality).
Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording.
So you're saying that the *exact* reason I cannot go from 8-track to CD is because the quality increases. Doesn't that logically mean that I would be allowed to go *down* in quality as much as I want? So why the hell can't I make VHS tapes of my DVDs, for those times I want to bring them with me to view with friends or relatives who may not have a DVD player yet? Aren't you implicitly saying that that's legal?
When you buy a CD, you should feel free to copy it for your own use.
- Matt Oppenheim, RIAA
I'd love to, except that some nefarious individual seems to have "copy protected" some of my CDs.
Okay, here's another one:
So, here's what you do: take the digital stream and translate the binary data to tones (hi, low) and convert those tones to analog, make your copy using only analog, band pass out the gibbs artefacts, convert the tones back to digital, run through a decoder with a touch o' error correction. Done.Yeah, right.
If you're going to sue me for damages for my mp3 collection, it assumes that they lost the money I would have spent on the product. This is faulty logic if i never had any intent on buying their product. 3 scenarios:
1.If I like the song (and others on the album), I'll go and buy it. Thus, they've suffered no lost
2. I don't like the song very much after all or the rest of the album is bad. I'm not going to buy it. My actions don't result in a loss because I don't buy CDs based on one song on the radio to begin with.
3. I have zero intention or have zero ability to purchase the album. Maybe it's a joke song. Maybe its a crappy song I'm downloading to irritate my roomate. Maybe it is something out of print or not offered by any retailers I have access too. There was never an anticipation of the RIAA getting any profit from me, so my download has no net effect.
Now I don't exactly think this arguemnt will stand up in court or anything. The RIAA has purchased enough laws to prosecute anybody they want. But the fact of the matter, which is made very clear by the RIAA goon's statement, is that the RIAA just doesn't get it. They've stifled the public's ability to get a variety of music for so long and now the dam has burst and they're drowning. People like to hear music. It makes us happy, sad, romantic, nostalgic, etc. But when you charge people inflated prices for little discs, raise concert prices above the $100 mark, homogonize the radio, and protest at the slightest attempt at competition, people are bound to turn on you at some point. The fact that they still haven't figured that out is a testament to how screwed up the industry is.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
It's a little ironic to think that musicians can live off the same one-hit-wonder for the rest of their natural lives, while a scientist could invent some sort of miracle device that does untold amounts of good for the entire human race (like, say, a lightbulb), as opposed to the artist, who only does good for his fans, can only live off of it for 17 years. Wow, nice priorities, there.
Heh. Not accessing others' property and not violating anybody's personal rights... is exactly what every other infringer is doing. Can I take that as the go-ahead that "infringers" aren't doing anything wrong?
In the context of his point, he's essentially saying that the RIAA is justified in doing whatever they want, even if it's illegal, because they're not doing it for an evil purpose. So if I lost a watch, I'd be justified in looking in your house for it without your permission. Hell, that's not even right. I'd be justified in looking to see if you had the same watch as me.
Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "Sharing" in the P2P context has become a euphemism for "copying." That copying is neither legal nor ethical
and then From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music...
Yet using the same logic, reading a book checked out from the library would be just as unethical since you are "taking money out of the pockets..."
Those companies (including Pressplay, Rhapsody, Listen, etc.) are delivering to consumers high quality music online in a format and form that consumers have demanded.
Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.
The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make.
Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.
The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone.
Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.
In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?
Hm, I wonder, is it ok to steal from a thief. You could just as easily frame it as 'how dare you steal my stolen goods!'
Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers
Increased cost? That seems to be backwards, progress has decreased the barrier not increased it. As for the second clause, bullshit. Congress has bowed to corporate lobbying. You can't honestly say with a straight face that any person needs life+70years' worth of fiduciary recovery as incentive.
Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording
Again, apples and oranges. Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Mr. Oppenheim remarks: "If art of any form is going to survive and flourish in our culture, we need to support it and protect it."
This is a cynical and ingenuous statement. Perhaps Matt believes that is the goal of his organization, but its aims appear now to have more to do with lining its executives' pockets than with the promotion of the arts. The music industry wants us to believe that without them there would be no more music, no more arts. What crap. People would still write, play, and even record & distribute music. People did plenty of that before there was a music industry. The only difference would be... no music industry ! Which of course means no more fat cats, no more industry control of popular culture, no more middlemen whose main purpose in all of this is to keep their jobs.
And yes, Matt, some of us have considered that whole infrastructure from Sheryl Crow to the clerk at the local CD store and everyone in between. The Internet indeed threatens the existence of that infrastructure, and it is in the way of such things that your industry would rather fight than switch. I find it still ludicrous that iMusic and similar services are being touted so loudly, when the total amount spent on a CD's number of songs still comes to what you'd pay for a CD in the store. Yes, we get to choose the tunes, but we actually get less (no packaging, no Easter eggs, no value added) for the same money. Which means your industry can charge essentially the same amount of money for the product while eliminating the infrastructure you yourself want us to care so much about. Hmm...
Here's a real idea, Matt: Why doesn't your industry get it together to place kiosks in my local CD store, kiosks that are basically high-speed connections to a content delivery service. These stands would let me select or even design the CD cover material, then I could download and burn the content to disc right then & there, I get the jewel case and all. Hey, if I spend enough maybe you guys could throw in a little extra value, kinda like all the bonus material you get from a DVD. You think a store with maybe twenty of those kiosks would do a bumpin' business ?
So there's an idea, Matt. I haven't copyrighted or patented it yet, so I'll let you have it for free. Go ahead, share it with your friends. I'm releasing it on the Internet under the GPL anyway...
Trespass is probably the best meatspace analogy. Trespass law and copyright law are both about legally enforcing control.
Laws about trespass are a balancing act, just like laws about copyright. Fair use is just like the UK laws that require rural property owners to let hikers walk through their land.
A DVD factory in Hong Kong is like building an apartment house on someone else's property. Napster was like inviting a million of your friends to walk across someone's farm. The DMCA is like outlawing a book about how to open a gate.
Casey Muratori from Kirkland, Wash. asks:
Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds:
So, in simpler terms, the questioner asks:
To which the RIAA representative responds:
Very interesting Q&A session overall, I felt Mr. Lessig was quite sympathetic to the cause of limiting copyrights to the terms and purposes of their original creation, while the RIAA representative took the position of defending the industry's interests (though that "AMEN" comment was a bit odd for a senior vice president) as expected. It was a nice contrast and quite refreshing to hear respected members of their respective fields answer questions that haven't been excessively pre-screened.
-DAVEO
RIAA: "Intellectual property should not be treated any differently than other property." Yeah, but it *is* different than other property. Duh. Why are we having these discussions over and over? If they keep telling us this they hope we will finally believe it. Those claiming ownership of that which cannot be contained run to the regulatory agencies in hope of enforcing their position. They will win only if we give in to them. Let's back legislation that allows for *reasonable* profits and open access. Who decides what that means? We all do. I'm done.
Who owns stolen property? The original owner, or the thief? If "fair use" privilege travels with ownership of the original media, then the RIAA loses either way.
You buy a CD, and rip it to mp3. This is legal, right? You own the CD.
I then steal your CD.
So: who owns it now? Who has the "fair use" privilege?
If I own it because I stole it (more precisely: you NO LONGER own it because you don't have it anymore), then I can rip it to mp3 legally even though I got the CD through illegal means. What you and I would do in this case is rob each other. You steal all my CDs and rip them, and I'll steal all your CDs and rip them, and aside from the crime of theft (and neither of us press charges, and "accidentally" leave our crates of stolen CDs at each other's houses next time we visit), no laws have been broken.
If you still own it even though I stole it, then you still have all your fair use rights, including making a new CD to replace the one I stole.
We can still rob each other.
How would the RIAA answer that?
My hunch is the only way out for them would be to claim that there is no "fair use" rights on stolen property, and that everybody loses their rights and has to buy new copies. (Which of course works out wonderfully for them.) I guess at that point your recourse is to consider my theft of your CD a "loan" so you can burn a new CD, claiming to still own it. So the theft victim's claiming ownership of the stolen property is the only way to retain their "fair use" rights.
Isn't this astonishingly stupid?
-- http://frobnosticate.com
The music industry loves to draw the analogy between stealing tangible products (shoplifting a CD, etc.) and making copies of intangible products that leave the original untouched, and of course they use the term "theft" to describe making those copies. For those who would mindlessly nod their heads and mumble about how correct this analogy must be, a simple definition of "theft" puts the lie to it:
(emphasis mine)
I'm not saying that making copies is not a violation of our woefully-imbalanced copyright laws, because in many cases it is a violation of the law (i.e., when no permission from the copyright owner exists, whether on an individual or advance license basis). But the "shoplifting" analogy should immediately result in derisive laughter until the person presenting it is silenced and never brings it up again.
Just my humble opinion, of course. :-)
No Laughing Allowed!
Ever stuck to an arguement even when you knew you were wrong, because it looked like you might be able to at least prevent people from finding the truth (image).
Ever seen the 8-year-old that told an unbelievable lie, only to compound it with more wild claims in attempts at justification... it's like digging your way out of a hole but piling the dirt on your own head.
The RIAA hasn't grown up. They're still in big-lie syndrome... and as long as some people believe that filesharing is the cause of their woes, they get some form of retribution/compensation/etc despite the shittiness of their own business model.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
I've suggested this before. I think that one factor contributing to the suck of music is record label contracts. They have gotten progressively more onerous as time goes on. Bands have to keep making music with each other, album after contracted album, until the contract plays out. Anyone who's done any serious creative work knows that you can't keep doing the same shit over and over.
People keep saying "all the bands suck" but this is clearly not true, because all these bands have hits that you've heard and liked at some point. They just can't sustain that creative energy.. they hit a configuration of art and artists that work for one song, or maybe one album, and based on that they are enslaved into a contract and forced to churn out crap for the rest of their lives.
Bands, like any creative labor, need to try different material to keep the quality of work high. They can even go back to their original stuff after a while, but to keep that engine turning they need to prime it with other sources of creative energy.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Homeless person A: "Anyone mind if I set myself up under this next bridge here"
Homeless person B: "Wouldn't recommend it. That's been the new headquarters for all the RIAA execs who hung on until the end"
Homeless person A: "Oh, well I don't want to associate with them. How about in this dumpster instead"
Homeless person B: Well, I think somebody from SCO was using it a short while back, but it might be free now.
Property is physical. It can be destroyed. It can be damaged. If stolen, the rightful owner no longer possesses that property. These rules do not apply to ideas. If someone has an idea, and someone else gets the same idea, the latter has not deprived the former of their thought.
We are (were?) on the precipice of a new era -- the end, or moderation, of scarcity -- information, education, knowlege, and culture all widely shareable, across great distances, cheaper than any other time in history.
What have we done with with our newfound resources? We've created artificial scarecity! We've invented whole new concepts, laws, and systems to contain the ethereal, replacing it with tired Machiavellian rules.
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
Having fully read the article and read a number of the replies I'm quite amazed at how many people seem to think it is ok to download music, that they are doing no wrong. This idea that because something exists in a digital rather than a physical form means that by copying it you are not harming the industry is crazy. Imagine you are an aspiring writer and you've written a book in the hope you can quit your job to pursue your dream. Now imagine someone got a copy of that book and distributed it online and everyone read it, no one paid for it, and you still had to work in your crappy job. Sure the money is not the main motivation for an artist, but in our society when we find someone with talent we don't mind paying them (often greatly) so that they can enrich and entertain our lives. Someone else can pack groceries. If you think an album is over priced or a musician is untalented then don't buy it. But don't download it and claim some moral high ground. Yes the RIAA is rich and powerful, but that doesn't make stealing from them is right. Granted the DMCA goes too far, but using Kazaa all the time won't change that. You can pedantically pick apart some of Matt Openheim's sentences out of context all you like, but if you're listening to music, or watching a movie that you haven't paid for, how can you say with honesty that you are helping and supporting an industry? Peer to peer technology is great and can be used for legitimate reasons. Let's not be naive though, it's main use is for piracy.
Belushi (the later) and Ackroyd are on Carson Daily right now and Danny boy just said "we want folks to share this, burn it, download it - have fun. We're a small label now - if I was still on Universal I'd get in real trouble for sayin' that..."
"The DMCA Anti-Circumvention provision is not intended to stifle technological innovation"
Just like the Gatling Gun was meant to end wars quicker, not make the murder of huge numbers of people fast and efficient.
So what with intentions; It sure as hell IS stifling innovation, no matter what you say (See kid who wrote search tool, lost life's savings to RIAA). That it (supposedly) isn't meant to stifle innovation, but can, doesn't matter to large corporations that are so consumed by moneylust that they will do anything to turn a profit.
before I get so angry I've got to post.
RIAA guy re: cease-and-desist letters:
We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights.
Really, you mean my copyrighted content on my website is not my property? Interesting, grasshopper, perhaps you should consider whether your own organization owns any "property" as you say.
In defending extended copyright terms, RIAA guy:
Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works...
Right, I forgot how much more expensive it is to post a single mp3 file than to press a million CD's. That certainly explains why my paper industry stocks are doing so well: it's just so much cheaper to print copies than put them online.
I know I'm nitpicking, but for the love of god, doesn't this guy have the RIAA-mandated filter between his rational mind and his keyboard/voice? I'm usually a lot more even-keeled, but this stuff is straight from left field.
I can't believe you ripped of the intellectual property in his comment like that.
I would've paid $10 for a reformatted version, but now I've stolen it instead.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
no he has a license to the CONTENT of the 8 track edition.
He has a license to the content of the 8-track version, which includes all the noise of the 8-track version. He does not have a license to the extra bits of dynamic range included on the CD version.
And if you bought T2 on VHS, you should be entitled to reencode it and record it on DVD
Exactly. You have a license to the content of your VHS tape, but you don't have a license to the extra bits of dynamic range included on the DVD version.
The RIAA representative's position may look like cow manure to some readers, but I think I know where he's coming from.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You probbably also noticed that tiny distinction that Lessig made:
But that's probably obvious... (It was so blatantly obvious, lieing directly under my nose, that I for once couldn't think of it :)
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
itunes's format can't be burned to cd
Not only can purchases from the iTunes Music Store be recorded in Red Book format to Compact Disc Digital Audio Recordable media, but a given playlist can be burned three times.
iTunes Music Store is currently in a beta test and is scheduled for full deployment in December.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Unfortunately for the RIAA, producing music is not that hard and no longer requires millions of dollars in equipment.
You mean recording music has become easy and relatively inexpensive. This is correct.
But before a song can be recorded, it has to be written first. Writing original music without accidentally stepping on somebody else's copyright (e.g. "My Sweet Lord" by Harrison) seems nearly impossible, and I can mathematically prove it if you want.
Given that the RIAA contributes virtually zero to the music production process
The RIAA is an association of record labels, and I think of record labels as venture capitalists who invest in recording artists (advance) in hope of gaining a return (label's share of royalties). Just as with traditional VCs, many of a label's investments fail to recoup.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Once again, the News Hour shows that they can present television news like no one else. Consistently, this program provides in-depth analysis of issues that get, at best, a 30 second report with useless graphics and video on other televised sources. Of course, for this, Jim Lehrer and Co. are rewarded with terminally low ratings. Thankfully, PBS accepts these low ratings as the payoff for integrity and thoroughness.
It is ironic that, in order to get a thorough and relatively unbiased presentation of the day's stories, one turns to a program partially funded by the US govt. Say what you will about whether there ought to be public television or not, a point which is obviously controversial. Whatever one's philosophical analysis says, at least PBS (and NPR, too) provide a valuable service in presenting news in greater depth (and with less dumbing-down) than can be found in any commercial enterprise.
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
The website industry including this site was started by amateurs who did it for fun, it became popular and alot of people got rich.
What makes you think musicians cant make money in the same way websites do?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Say Lye Ow who is currently serving 24 months for a felony charge of trade secret violation would tend to disagree with you that trade secrets aren't protected by law. Look up the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Here are the current cases.
Yes, there would still be a *possibility* for making money, but there wouldn't be any *need* for it. Money is a way for most people to get goods and services, and is a way for rich people to keep score. If anything could be freely copied, the need to use money to get goods diminishes to nothing in a very short time, and the rich people lose their way to keep score. Wahh. I think one big problem would be standards. It would be like OSS, only truly applied to everything. There wouldn't be a relatively small group with the power to introduce new tech, either. If you think the rate of change is high *now*, imagine what it would be if people could freely innovate without regard to cost. I don't think the problem a few posts back about a 'monocar' culture would be the problem. Rather, the problem would be in determining what's *worth* copying and what isn't. Perhaps you could receive social status by introducing copy-worthy designs and innovations, rather than by possessing the most colored squares of clothy paper. Of course, the question would be: if there was no need to have a job to feed your family, who would maintain the roads? Who would pick up trash? Who would make sure the sanitation plants were still functioning? Would doctors and nurses still do their jobs? What would we do with the dictators that wouldn't allow access to replicators for their citizens, while copying massive amounts of weapons? Hmm. I'm not sure I'd want some budding world-ruler-wannabe copying cruise missles or bombers....also, if you could copy *anything*...what happens to the first guy that accidentally clones himself? Which one is the 'real' one?
I guess there are just a lot of things that we couldn't possibly predict; the law of unintended consequences will probably kill us all, sooner or later. That's why I smoke and eat food that tastes good and flirt with women and try to stress less. Worry will kill you before most of the things you're worrying about will.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Yeah, because nobody would *ever* make something good and useful unless they could get strong copyright and patent protection on it, would they? *Cough*Linux*Cough*.
There's no doubt the business models would have to change. But really, is the 2003 model of a car really so much better than the 2002 model, or the 2000 model, or the 1990 model? There might not be as much incentive to spend time to develop new models when the old one is "good enough". On the other hand, if enough people have enough need for a new "X" they'll either make it themselves or pay someone to make it for them. Sure, they'll have to live with other people having it as well, but so what?
I think the incredible success of Open Source / Free software has proved that people can and will design and build amazing things even if they can't sell the design or the end product for much if anything. If the physical world of car manufacturing were similar we'd probably end up with some pretty funky looking cars, and a lot of cars might have some really odd UI "features" and some odd bugs, but so what? I, for one, would not cry if Ford had to close down because there was no margin in designing the newest Mega-SUV.
As for music and other artistic processes, there was music before copyright, and there would be music afterwards. There might not be an N'Sync because the margins just wouldn't be there, but there would probably be just as many, if not more, local bands. To make money, musicians would have to play gigs. Guess what? Most of them do that anyhow, and many of them really enjoy it.
I say, why fear change? Sure there's a downside to getting rid of IP laws, but it's pretty obvious there's a huge downside to keeping them in place as well.