Slashdot Mirror
What The RIAA Gets Out Of File Sharing
ChrisPaget writes "Wired have a fascinating article about a company called BigChampagne which sells regional P2P download statistics to most of the major record labels. When the labels know what people are downloading, they know what to put on the radio, and sales in the area increase. The record industry's lawsuits against file- sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance."
The RIAA is making the single mother of a 12 year old pay thousands to settle. Does anyone really think that they are just going to allow their plot to be undercut? Clearchannel and the RIAA run a tight squeeze on music and it won't change without some serious consumer action and hopefully federal litigation.
-ad105
If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance.
I'm sure the RIAA will simply put a new spin on it, in a "we're not monitoring demand, we're monitoring privacy" kind of way. A legit use, but one that doesn't support file-sharing.
having a legitimate use doesn't really have any legal effect. File sharing programs already have many possible legitimate uses. They have already quit trying to outlaw the file sharing software. Guns have legitimate uses, however if I use it to kill somebody that doesn't limit my culpability.
This is a legitimate use for the network (maybe).
That doesn't make illegal uses (Copyright Infringement) legal, but it helps the case that the network itself has legal uses.
The RIAA would like to see the network removed, therefore may be shooting itself in the foot. This does not affect the moral, ethecial or legal status of Copyright Infringement.
For example, CDs are legal. if the RIAA attempted to outlaw them, then got caught using them, there would red faces.
ok?
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
The RIAA has the same problem as you. They think of downloading songs as the equivalent of stealing cars. Apples and oranges. File sharing can be made to work for the record industry. There is no way to make auto theft profitable for the auto industry. If the record industry is willing to make some heavy changes to their business model they will survive.
Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
Or an even better analogy would be about which cars are copied in peer to peer sharing networks and then marketing data to the radio stations so they know what cars people want to hear.
Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart
Ah, but the RIAA don't want informed shoppers, because that would mean that Indies would actually become a new, global competitor with the power of the people behind it, instead of just cash.
I don't know why people always try to liken music sharing to property theft. It's just not the same thing. When you download a song, you're making a COPY. That's different from taking the property of another person. In the case of theft, the victim sacrifices the thing that you took.
The one argument that you could make is that the label loses the opportunity to sell you a CD when you download their music, but that isn't true either. I would say half of my music downloads (and I don't download very much) lead to CD purchases.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Here's the kicker. Of course there is the classic, "What if I take a cd and make a copy for a friend?" argument. Well, that doesn't necessarily apply to file sharing. Think of it this way. What if I take and spend my own money and gave out 10,000 copies to people standing on the street? Do you know what that is called? It's called MARKETING and it didn't even happen at the expense of the artist or the recording label.
The RIAA should recognize file sharing as a medium for marketing. People who normally wouldn't listen to an album, may download it, like and then buy it. Even if that person doesn't buy it, chances are that they will tell someone about it and that person might buy it. It has a cascading effect.
I think file sharing has more positives than negatives. Rather than combating it, the RIAA should see it as a way of life and take advantage of it. The RIAA should use file sharing's own strengths for it's own advantages.
If you listen to a Clear Channel station (how can you NOT listen to one) you notice they play the same 20 songs all day and all night.
I don't know about you, but if I hear the same songs every time I turn on the radio, I have NO need to by the CD. I get burned out on it for free.
If they start using this info and get more artists on the air it can only help. This could increase their ratio of "listeners due to lack of choice" to "willing listeners" and help their advertisement revenue.
It will also help RIAA and non-RIAA affiliated labels sell more records by getting more airplay for lesser known artists. Less total air time for the current top artists would help them not to give away the need to buy while also not making people think of them as annoying.
IMHO, quite a bit of the RIAA's low sales can be traced back to the Clear Channel monopoly.
How can using these P2P statisics be a bad thing?
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
without advocating piracy, I'd like to point out a few facts about downloading music: (these points do NOT apply to assholes that sell pirated music in bulk)
-not unlike the whole "if a tree falls in the middle of the forest, does it make a sound?" argument, it is impossible to *harm* an artist or label by downloading and listening to a song you would never consider buying in the first place. however, you are most definitely harming the artist/label by downloading the new album put out by your favorite band that you would buy if it were not for your ability to download said album.
-The labels, while carrying on about harm to artists, demostrate very little care towards the artists. if the label cared more, they would certainly be paying artists a more appropriate royalty per cd. from everything I know, *normal* artists make anywhere from $0.01 to $0.10 per cd. this obviously doesnt apply to self-published artists and superstar artists who have long since passed their first contract.
-The artists have historically been unable to fill an entire album with decent material. There isnt a single person out there that hasnt bought a cd after hearing a song or two and found the rest to be crap. this really lends itself to people wanting to hear more than the current radio single before forking out $20 for a cd.
-there are people who dont feel obligated to pay for another copy of a cd that was stolen from them, or for that cassette they purchased 10 years ago. if you paid the price for an album once, why in the world should you pay it again? we know it's not media costs!!
just things to think about...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.