RIAA Bits

HardYakka writes "The New York Times writes that record industry executives who are adamant that file sharing is stealing are not above stealing themselves." The NYT also has two other stories on file-sharing today: one with emphasis on musicians, and an opinion piece about the internet. Also floating around: this humor piece and an EFF petition.

Comments

Stealing by the RIAA

[AtariAmarok]

The news these days is filled with stories of stealing by the RIAA.

What else can you call people being forced to give money to the RIAA through the use of threats?

Irony...

[mgcsinc]

While I like the irony implied, of the music industry's hypocrisy in accusing file-sharers of stealing when they, in fact, are stealing themselves, I think the two ideas of intellectual property stealing do not mesh quite so easily. The file-sharing theft usually committed is one of profit-deprivation; users download and share for personal enjoyment, depriving the industry of sales money. The theft committed by artists, publishers, recording studios, authors, and the like in unauthorized use of other's works in their own, as much as it may be argued to be a form of innovation, aims to boost one's own profits. This difference, while alleviating some of the irony of the situation, does not paint the industry in any better of a light...

Re:Irony...

[Echnin]

I think this was the interesting bit:

But the process still had some hurdles to get over, Mr. Bernoff admitted. Recently he was discussing his research with an executive at a media organization that has been very aggressive about trying to discourage file-sharing. When Mr. Bernoff asked the executive how he had gotten the report, which Forrester [the organization at which Bernoff works,] sells for $895, the man hesitated.

Re:Irony...

[dmayle]

Yes, but you've got to realize that the theft alluded to by the Slashdot story, as explained in the article, was that of a record executive getting a copy of an analyst's report without paying the $895 to Forrester to have that copy. If a song valued at ~$1 (observed price for an electronic copy of a song from iTMS) is worth $150,000, then Forrester should sue the record executive for $134.25 million dollars! Let's see how the RIAA like a taste of their own medicine!

Re:Irony...

[Snaller]

The file-sharing theft usually committed is one of profit-deprivation; users download and share for personal enjoyment, depriving the industry of sales money.

File sharing is not theft, precisly because it is not a given conclusion that anyone is loosing money. Filesharing is a copyright violation.

Most people just treat it like radio, and just like you don't buy EVERYHING you hear on radio, they don't play to buy everything here. Money lost is insignificaiton.

The theft committed by artists, publishers, recording studios, authors, and the like in unauthorized use of other's works in their own, as much as it may be argued to be a form of innovation, aims to boost one's own profits.

While they are not stealing either, and also violating copyright law, it is somewhat closer to stealing since they are directly profiting by it.

Re:Irony...

[K8Fan]

The copying of the Forrester report is much more harmful to Forrester than thousands of downloads of the latest Top Ten single could ever be to the record company in question. Forrester sells a small number of copies of the reports from their various analysts like Josh (who get a bonus for every time they get quoted in a mainstream magazine). The average reader of a Forrester report is a vice-president of a Fortune 500 company - an obviously limited market. The executive at the record company could and should have bought his own copy of the report.

This is triple-layer, double-fudge death-by-chocolate irony!

Disclaimer: I used to work for Forrester. Unofficial Company Motto: We only have to be right more than half the time!

Birds of a feather

[Vyce]

And the other: Takes one to know one. I mean, come on, these people would sell their own mothers (or at least it seems) to make themselves a dollar. They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights. They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best. (And this makes the thing above seem all the more curious.) They steal from the distributors, in the form of very low margin on CD sales. So...this whole thing isn't that surprising to me, or anyone I hope, it's just business as usual.

Re:Birds of a feather

[dirk]

Let's look at these "thefts, shall we.

They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.

They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it. Some people find the price for a "mediocre" CD (which just means one you don't like, apparently other people do like it, since they are willing to pay "exorbitant" prices for it) to be a fair price. This is shown by the fact that they are willing to pay for them.

They steal from the distributors, in the form of very low margin on CD sales.
Last time I checked, the music industry has no say in the margins of distributors. They set their own margins. In fact, when the music industry tried to force distributors to set higher margins (which would keep place like Best Buy from selling CDs at cost and hurting the music only and small mom-and-pop shops), they were sued and lost.

I fail to see the RIAA stealing from anyone. They are doing what anyone in business does, they are taking what they can. If the artists would stop being so incredibly greedy and signing bad contracts because they think they might make billions of dollars, they wouldn't be locked into bad contracts. If the consumers really though the cost of a CD was outrageous, people wouldn't buy them.

Re:Birds of a feather

[KDan]

They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.
That is only part of the story. The musicians have little choice about it, seeing as the big labels have a practical monopoly on distributing music - hell, they own most of the small labels too...

They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it.
Yes and no, again. The consumers have no choice to go and buy xyz CD from another label who doesn't charge exhorbitant prices. If they did, maybe they wouldn't be downloading so many songs off the internet... fyi I don't buy CDs (haven't bought one for about 4-5 years). Saying that music is not a necessity is irrelevant. Who gave the record companies the right to decide who can listen to what? WE did. And we can take it back. And we are taking it back. And they can sue all they want, that's the way it is and they'd better get on with it.

Daniel

Re:Birds of a feather

[MikeFM]

Do artists have much choice? The RIAA has the market so locked up that there is little room for competition. It is pretty close to being extortion. Do it our way or you'll be flipping burgers forever. On the other hand the Internet is giving artists a choice and I hope more of them are realizing that they don't need to sign with a major label to make a living doing what they love. They may not get rich as independents but if they're good they can make a decent living.

I don't mind cd prices being high but again that is because the Internet gives me an alternative. I'll continue to download music instead of buying it until they lower cd prices. They can make threats until they go blue in the face and it won't change the fact that as long as they overcharge they'll be lossing out on sales. I don't need to feel guilty about the artists because I can support them by going to concerts and buying tshirts and posters and such. This whole thing is essentially consumers refusing to be ripped off.

I'll also disagree that people can live without music. That is a dumb concept that I hear often. Music, movies, tv, artwork, etc may not be needed to stay alive but it is needed to keep our culture alive. Without expossure to such things people will go off on their own tangents and not unify in the building of our society. Shared artwork is part of shared experience and binds us together. It also seeds new ideas in other minds so that we can keep producing. So, in general, it's a bad idea to try to limit who can be exposed to our shared culture.

You're exactly right that the RIAA is doing exactly what businesses do. I don't know if I'd call what they're doing stealing but it is greed and shortsighted. That is what pure capitalism is. Which is part of why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately those laws are not really functioning so there is little balance to huge corporations that would suck the rest of the world dry. I think of the economy as an ecosystem. It's good for the ecosystem to have strong species that thrive. It becomes very bad though for one species to thrive to such a point that it's killing off many other species. Monopolies are the economic equivilant of human beings burning down rain forests.

Re:Birds of a feather

[Sphere1952]

Your're getting warm, but the fact is that the RIAA is stomping upon our constutional rights in order to accomplish something which is illegal anyway.

The only people who have any sort of fundamental right here is the people who are attempting to use P2P in order to reach willing listeners.

The RIAA is attempting to prevent P2P from becoming a conduit for artists reaching the general public without going through them. That is to say, they are attempting to restrain trade.

The right to be heard by willing listeners is a fundamental part of the right to free speech -- not to mention the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Since we cannot tell which music is released to P2P as free speech and which music is protected by some sort of limited commercial copyright protection, it is only reasonable for us to assume it to be free speech (a fundamental right) until proven otherwise.

Re:Birds of a feather

[littlerubberfeet]

As a recording engineer, I can tell you how much it set the label back. $1.50. That includes duplication, distribution, and liner notes/cases.

The sad thing is that musicians usually have to foot the bill for recording sessions, which can run upwards of several thousand an hour. Not cheap. The artists are getting gouged, without much choice. I have never and will never produce a CD that gets distro'd by an RIAA member label.

Re:Birds of a feather

[Sphere1952]

I think you'll like this:

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841 by Thomas Babington Macaulay

Here's the best part: "I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."

quote from the article...

[lxs]

For example, you can't prosecute someone just for producing "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life."

We need tighter legislation NOW!

Re:quote from the article...

[WCityMike]

Best bet is just to lose the cloting altogether. :)

But then she could bleed to death in hours.

(And if you want to see Jolie nekkid, go rent Gia.)

Hrmm

[acehole]

Congratulations RIAA keep up the good work, I hope you proceed to the next level which is taking the elderly out into the middle of a street for a public stoning from unsellable cds.

Perhaps putting children to work in your cd factories might teach them that each song they steal is worth not the 1 cent it's pressed on, but thousands of dollars.

Re:Hrmm

[argoff]

Yeah! And I even know of a 12 yr old girl and welfare mom who would be good starter candidates :)

Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...

[Anonymous Coward]

Between the RIAA and SCO, plus ongoing Microsoft FUD, I think we're starting to see the fraying edge of a maturing "Internet Economy", and some companies are clinging to really ancient buisness models that will not work in this era.

The RIAA member companies failed to get together to innovate a new buisness model when the InterNet came along, and transferred this problem to the RIAA, which became their personal pitbull. Everyone's blaming the RIAA for this latest round of should-be-RICO-prosecuted behaviour by this company, but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?

SCO is *really* the leading edge of "my buisness model failed" along with Microsoft - the pair of them are like the old IBM of the 90's, except instead of the hardware buisness, they're in the software buisness. Remember PS/2's, proprietary hardware, and IBM almost incredulously holding on to a market that was churning out clone PC's by the millions?

SCO & Microsoft are like this - dinosaurs in the software industry that think you can still lock a customer in with a proprietary product and control their innovation path. Take a fresh look @ Microsoft as the IBM of the new millenium and it starts to become clear - Microsoft is nothing more than a proprietary product with a lot of market share trying to protect that marketshare with intimidation and borderline legal tactics.

There's another two boycotts we should tell the Anti-Trust folks about in California & New York enforcing the decree on Microsoft anti-trust actions. Tell them the TCPA and security certificate scheme Microsoft is developing along with LongHorn represent another way Microsoft is trying to deny people access into their code - that "trusted code" argument is reeking all across it.

And could someone please expose how much the US Government spent this year on inferior Microsoft product? I'd like to know how much insecure RPC crap my Congress-critters managed to purchase this year...

Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...

[Sphere1952]

"...but let's not forget at the same time the recording industry labels support these chuckleheads - where's the boycott against the labels?"

For the most part, the people doing the boycotting know very well that the RIAA is a stand-in for the Big Five labels. There is a lot of talk in the various fora about buying from unsigned artists and independent labels.

Some are even pointing out that Sony et. at. sell other things besides CDs, and suggest boycotting the entire company.

Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...

[SmallFurryCreature]

Really? Ancient business models failing? You mean the one where I produce something for a certain cost and then I sell it for cost + profit? I could swear most of us take part in that model at least once a week. Well at least those I presume are capable of typing. It is called shopping.

Of course this ancient and still going strong model is based on a certain principle. Namely that is a substantial part of the cost of the item being sold is the production of the item itself. So that producing X times the number of items will incur X times the cost or at least close to that. Although cost per unit tends to go down as the number of units goes up this is not a steep curve nor for that matter an infinite one no matter how the charts look. If it was then at a certain number of units the cost of production would fall to zero. Perhaps even go negative :)

What is outdated is the idea that this model applies to all things being sold. The technologies that made the internet possible have allowed some of the basics behind the cost of producing items to be changed. If it costs me X to produce a digital product then it doesn't cost me X*number of items. The cost of material and production capacity that ensures the rather smooth curve in the normal world is gone. Really the only thing keep the cost from being zero is the cost of distribution wich are low for digitals products.

Producing a billion or a thousand digital items makes no difference. This is new. Also new is that distribution costs are pretty much equel no matter the distence. I now have a truly worldwide audience. Compare this to the rather limited distance a product like say milk goes.

So for digital products a number of changes have occured.

• Cost of production of a single item is pretty close to production of an infinite number of items. This is because we can make an excact copie of it without loss at neglible costs.
• Cost of storage has plummted. Where in the normal world I have to store every item made a digital product needs to store only 1 item, the original. www.kernel.org holds only 1 copy of a kernel at a time. Not one for everyone who uses linux.
• Related to the above, no cost for unsold copies. Every copy made is "sold".
• Neglible transportation cost. Try sending a letter to the other side of the world. It will cost easily as much as the material itself. Now send an email. Further more the costs don't increase with distance (well not so you notice, again try sending an email)

there are lots of other differences but I think these alone make for the fact that we now can have a different business model. And that is the problem. Not that the old model is obsolete. It still works fine for products that are produced in the old way, no negative meaning being applied to old btw. What the record companies and for that matter most content suppliers have failed to realize that theyre products can use a new business method.

The silly thing is that music sharing is profitable for quite a number of companies. These are called ISP's and the telecoms. They make a bundle out of programs like napster. Or do you really need DSL/t3 to send email?

I for one am still waiting for the following. Every "record" store gets a computer with a couple of outlet points (cd burners firewire connections and such), some terminals, a big HD array say 1 terrabyte (very cheap if you use IDE, it doesn't have to be fast) and a connection to a central network (doesn't have to be the internet for security).

Then all that is needed is for every music owner to catalog their music and make it available on the central network.

I then browse the catalog in the shop and make my selections. Popular songs are already locally available while others are taking from the network, perhaps stored in a cache, and my selection is then burned or put on an mp3 player etc. I then pay the shopkeeper the fee.

Seems a simple enough solution. The shop has every piece of music ever sold on a wide va

Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...

[RajivSLK]

I could swear most of us take part in that model at least once a week. Well at least those I presume are capable of typing. It is called shopping.

Nonsense. You can get all your basic necessities from mother nature. Out here in the forest you can hunt and grow your own food, build your own house and even Access /. by generating your own electr..... Error detected on squirrel_running_wheel_generator1. Phase mistmatch. Shutting down power grid in 10..9..8..7... Ahhh help! Squirrels flying everywhe... @^&#% NO CARRIER

Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You did a good job of describing the basics for the economics of plenty vs the economics of scarcity. But your idea of a brick & mortar record shop with infinite inventory will never happen, for two reasons:

1) The RIAA and Co exist because they hold a monopoly and are able to abuse that monopoly position to suck big dollars out of the system through what looks like inefficiencies. Your proposed system is way too efficient, there isn't enough cover for the RIAA to hide their cash extraction activities. So, it means death to the RIAA just as much as unchecked napster.

2) If you can provide infinite inventory to a brick & mortar store via the internet, you can do it to people's homes too. Digital music isn't tied to the physical CD medium anymore (as you yourself already explained), mp3 players are smaller, lighter and play longer than cd players and that trend will only continue. So you don't even need a cd burner to effectively "buy" music.

Re:Welcome To The New World, Geek Fewl...

[ImpTech]

I agree with most of the parent, but as for this:

I for one am still waiting for the following. Every "record" store gets a computer with a couple of outlet points (cd burners firewire connections and such), some terminals, a big HD array say 1 terrabyte (very cheap if you use IDE, it doesn't have to be fast) and a connection to a central network (doesn't have to be the internet for security). Then all that is needed is for every music owner to catalog their music and make it available on the central network. I then browse the catalog in the shop and make my selections. Popular songs are already locally available while others are taking from the network, perhaps stored in a cache, and my selection is then burned or put on an mp3 player etc. I then pay the shopkeeper the fee.

This still sounds like I've got to go somewhere to get my music, which IMO is half the problem that filesharing (or buying from iTunes) solves. It could be good for record stores, giving them lower operating costs, but for the customer its lousy. You've got to do all the work you had to before, and you're getting less for it (don't try to tell me that getting mp3s on your iPod or a burned CD-R is even close to getting the actual CD!), though I guess cost passed onto the consumer would drop. Still not much of a competitor to internet-based solutions.

huh?

[CGP314]

"In a sense, Internet technology is a metaphor for the new morality. As long as you can get it, it doesn't matter how."

I don't get it.

Re:huh?

[Snaller]

It doesn't matter.

Filesharing != Stealing

[besfred]

via http://www.unix-girl.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_ id=1130 Comment by insin http://ds.dial.pipex.com/thumbs_aloft/ffi/ffi1.htm To summarize it: - Filesharing is copyright infringement at best, which is a civil offence ("at best" meaning, if you forget about fair use and stuff like that) - Stealing is a crime The above link contains some rude words, but is to the point.

Time to take matters into our own hands?

[hkmwbz]

The EFF petition is a move in the right direction, but does it really make a difference? What is it that keeps the RIAA going? It's the fact that people still buy music from its members. Why do people buy this music? Because they want to listen to it. Because there is a demand.

Breaking the law is bad. But so is working to take away our rights. The RIAA is an organization which exists to work for record labels, in order to maximize profit. It is basically an organization which works for the industry, against the customer (or "consumer" which we are today).

Perhaps it is time to take matters into our own hands and really strike them where it hurts the most. If they don't make any money, they can't afford lawsuits and lobbying to take away our rights as individuals and as customers. They cannot spread lies about P2P and other useful technologies.

If as many people as possible spread music for free as much as possible, fewer would buy music. That's right, we are fighting this fight by breaking the law. We are trying to force the RIAA out of business.

A normal argument from RIAA apologists is that it is "morally wrong" to "steal music". I would say that the only morally right thing to do is to fight for one's rights! And this fight must be taken on a number of levels. From nice petitions that most likely will not make a difference, to breaking the law. Standing by and accepting that one's rights are taken away is a true sign of a "morally challenged" individual!

With several angles of attack, maybe the RIAA will eventually disappear.

RIAA should realize that tor many people, this is war. And wars are dirty. But it would benefit everyone except the RIAA members if it died, including the artists!

Would it be a good thing to form an organization with a single purpose - distribute as much as possible for free to prevent money from ending up in RIAA members' hands? The RIAA is already spreading lies and deception, so we don't really have much to lose do we?

Re:Time to take matters into our own hands?

[J-B0nd]

I think that a bigger threat to the RIAA is LEGAL internet distribution, because they cannot interfere with it at all. I recently discovered the Open Source, cross platform project iRate Radio, a service that distributes free songs that the Artists want distributed. Check it out at The iRate Homepage and programmers, please contribute to make it better! Once people discover independent music, they are much less likely to go back.

The Legal Process

[AtariAmarok]

Here's a bit from a song "Pretty Boy Floyd" which says it all about abuse of the "legal process":

"Now as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen."

RIAA Detention Centers

[TrollBurger]

Hey, the humour piece on the RIAA detention centers was pretty funny, but its really not that far from the truth. For over a decade and a half now the US government has been setting up and maintaining fully operational detention centers all throughout america.

There were estimates a few years ago that the capacity was over two million. Part of me doesn't want to know what their capacity is currently.

The camps were set up as a part of operation Rex84 (search) in the 80s, established on the reasoning that if a mass exodus of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Now that the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II move to establish anyone that breaks any law as a potential terrorist, it makes you wonder what they've got planned...

There's a lot of info on the net about these and other operations. A lot of the websites play the 'paranoid' card a little too strongly (*cough* alex jones*cough*), but I highly recommended you check out available info!

Some links:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/concentration.htm
http://www.c0balt.com/egg/insane.shtml

I'm not trolling, this is some serious shit, America!

Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]

[Sphere1952]

Just to be technical.

Stealing is taking by stealth. Robbery is taking by force. Extortion is taking by threat (Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage).

Re:Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]

[Soul-Burn666]

The correct term is barratry:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search? q=barratry

1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.

Re:Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]

[Sphere1952]

I'm still getting used to the term 'barratry'. It certainly applies here, as does the technical legal term "fucking assholes."

Re:Extortion [Re:Stealing by the RIAA]

[sudog]

To steal is to run away with the complete object. "I stole the bag." You rob someone if you take something from them: "I robbed the bank," or "I robbed the mailman," or "I robbed the safety deposit box."

You usually don't steal the mailman, or rob the money.

So the RIAA could legitimately be stealing money, because it's very simple to "steal the bag" right in front of its owner, even though you're "robbing" that owner of his bag.

registration free links

[Anonymous Coward]

...courtesy of google: not above stealing themselves musicians internet

Please, submitters - take a few seconds to look up these links - it'll save those of us who block cookies and/or are always on public computers and so loathe having to reregister for every single story (for whoever remembers their password for throw-away accounts?) quite a bit of time.

New pirate born

[computerlady]

I'd never, ever downloaded music nor accepted a copy of a CD from a friend until the RIAA started issuing the subpoenas.Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes the second wrong (the RIAA actions) piss off the honest folks so much that they side with the original lawbreakers.

I wonder if anyone else, like me, has been driven to a life of crime - or at least a life of acts of civil disobedience - by the RIAA goons?

Re:skip the registering, here is the piece

[Crimplene Prakman]

Illegally copying a copyrighted article about illegally copying copyrighted articles.

Oh, the irony.

Re:why don't they just stop downloading the songs?

[hkmwbz]

The RIAA is a cartel set up to protect the interests of the music industry. It exists only to push on those in power to make sure more money flows into the industry. It spreads lies and deception, such as trying to link P2P and child pornography.

The RIAA exists for the music industry, against the customer. It sees us as a means to increase profits, and rather than adapting to a new world, it tries to lobby for laws that take away our rights.

That they are right in protecting what they can according to the law, they are not right when they fight to take away our rights and use FUD and scare tactics to keep an outdated industry alive.

The RIAA was convicted of illegal price fixing wasn't it?

Those with a sense of common decency have a problem with what the RIAA is doing. The RIAA is trying to become the judge, jury and executioner. It is trying to take away our rights.

As I wrote elsewhere, it is time to go to war. The RIAA fights dirty. Well, so can we.

hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something new?

[turnstyle]

I just wrote a piece for Salon critiquing the file-sharing rhetoric and it was published simultaneously with a response by the EFF.

If you're not a Salon subscriber, you can click the free 'day pass' link for the full articles.

Personally, I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems, and less about how the RIAA is the Great Satan.

Wrong location

[Alain Williams]

• opening its massive detention facility in the high desert of Movaje, CA

That is on US soil & human rights would eventually be enforced. They should have learned from the US government and located the facility in Cuba, I gather that there is some spare space in Camp X-Ray.

Well, that would have been one way of improving the story!

Re:why don't they just stop downloading the songs?

[besfred]

A problem might be that people get that pop music shoved down their throats everywhere they go.
It is really hard to avoid getting brainwashed by that easy-listening music.
It starts from early ages (think "Barney's Dino Dancin Tunes"), you get used to simplistic melodies.
Later, you being a teenager, everyone at school talks about the latest top hits, ... You will become an outsider if you can not talk about these topics.

Sounds abit like conspiracy theory, but theres some truth in it. Also think brands in clothing.

Re:Remember McDonald's frivolous lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the truth about the "frivolous" McDonalds lawsuit:

-The coffee was 40 degrees hotter than most other restaurants keep it - close to the 212 degree boiling point.
-A national burn center had issued a public warning not to serve hot beverages over 135 degrees.
-There were 700 other burn claims against McDonald's before this injury, yet no action was taken.
-The victim offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but McDonald's refused to settle.

Read all about it here.

Author's rights.

[Sphere1952]

In general, the conversation about P2P misses the constitutional point entirely. Forget about the filesharer's rights and think only in terms of the author's rights. This is purely a conflict between author's rights.

There is music out there which the author wants shared. There is music out there which the author doesn't care if it's shared. There is some music out there which the author wants protected by copyright. The problem is that it is impossible to tell which music is which.

The filesharer is simply a hapless bystander who is caught-up in a legal quagmire. If the filesharers assume the work is protected by copyright then they are infringing the author's right to speak and be heard by willing listeners. If they assume the work is an act of free speech then they might be infringing the author's limited commercial copyright.

The question, then, is this: Ought the filesharer assume the work is a constitutionally protected act of free speech, or ought the filesharer assume the work is protected by an obscure federal statute giving limited commercial protection from copying?

WARNING

[ccarr.com]

The parent is not a faithful reproduction of the original article. The mostly correct, the poster has seen fit to insert references to certain recurrent off-topic themes which, if made more explicit, would certainly earn him a -1 moderation within seconds.

Can we use the law against them and sue them?

[iconnor]

If they are happy to download the music to see if it belongs to them, consider the mistake if it did not.
If someone has a name similar to that of their artist (or not), records some copyright material to mp3 and then puts it on the network. The condition is it is free for anyone to download, except the major record labels, their employees, agents, contractors or affiliates. By virtue of their copyright laws, they are not allowed to download it (aka steal it) and are subject to $1500 or $150,000 fine if they do.

All we need to do then is monitor the downloads of this mp3, and then sue the RIAA when they download it. If there is more than 216 of us doing this, then we can easily outweigh their laws and settle this similar to how the large companies settle patent lawsuits, you lower your weapons and we lower ours.

Re:Can we use the law against them and sue them?

[BanjoBob]

You better have more money than the RIAA if you plan to go to court and fight them. Just a thought. Also, in the District Court of NY, the music industry has NEVER lost a copyright case they get transferred to that court. Gee, I wonder why they try and get all cases there.

Very dim person

[nagora]

From the article: "Somehow everybody seems to be making out," she said. "I don't see any poor rock stars. I don't see any poor designers."

From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Everyone was rich and nobody wass poor. At least, no one very important

How does this idiot woman think she would ever hear of the poor (ie, failed) rock stars? In this month's "No Longer Rolling Stone"?

TWW

Re:Very dim person

[gl4ss]

the whole definition of 'rock star' makes it so.. if you just follow the rock stars on top, of course they're stinking rich and have fancy cars and everything, it's part of the image record companies wish their upstarts to have(all the 'living a dream iiik this is so cool' journal crap on mtv).

but in reality there have been dozens and dozens of people who have been stars for a while(who recording companies have _owned_) and then dumped out. there's shitloads of ex-stars who aren't rich by any means, some were smart and realized it wasn't going to last forever, some didn't(and got fucked).

however.. being poor at some time or for life time is a risk artists have had to take for thousands of years already(heck, it's also possible to be an artist while you get the most of your money from other sources, like it's possible to be a properiaty software writer during day and by night be writing your gpl'd software because you enjoy it).

luckily some rock 'superstars' realise that they've already have a shitload of money and they can now do anything they want without financial pressure(musically.. some just go nuts like mj), and can go nuts in their tours if they want to and people will come and enjoy the show.

Re:Very dim person

[anomic_event]

From the musicians article in NYT:
"Musicians tend to make more money from sales of concert tickets and merchandise than from CD sales."

If we are concerned about whether file-sharing is robbing actual music creators of $ then Read the Musicians article! It speaks of how the musicians themselve rarely recieve any royalties from CD sales.

Time for a change in laws......
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUS I.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Build tools that sidestep the RIAA

[linkjunkie]

And fullfill the authors desires. I found an interesting one at Sourceforge called iRate.
It downloads independent songs and you rate them.
There's more to it, and I recomend anyone who's tired of the RIAA to at least take a look.
Some of the downloads are a little slow, and it's an early version but I've already found some indie stuff I like.

This may be the direction we need to go.
Artists could get feedback and people are exposed to new music (minus the $20 per DECENT song tax;-)

what I find disturbing

[muonman]

is that with all the sanctimonious condemnation of file sharers as thieves, so far no one has dwelt opon the truly egregious thievery going on by the RIAA. That is, that they stole and continue to steal CONGRESS from the American people. (Not to mention the executive and judiciary, I mean come on people, Dubya? Scalia? Thomas? Ashcroft? Rumsfeld?)

They effectively take you and me out of the loop and expect us to have any respect for the laws they pass? Check your local copy of the Declaration of Independence for a take on what a "Good American"'s reaction is supposed to be to that.

Re: RIAA Bits

[justforaday]

the fact that a media exec "pirated" a Forrester report doesn't surprise me in the least. several years ago i was temping at one of the major record labels [something i swear i'll never do again]. quite literally about 2/3 of the people there had file sharing enabled on their machines giving anyone access to all the mp3s they had. of course, most of these people will probably claim that because they're on the other side of the fence that they have every right to share files to their coworkers in the name of "promotion".

Re:Something I've never understood...

[geekmetal]

Of more than 18,000 students surveyed, 38 percent said they had lifted material from the Internet for use in papers in the last year.

While this is generally seen in the negative, how about the fact these students help in highlighting the good work published out there on the internet? All we have teach them is to give credit and not lift an idea word to word. Sadly the university evaluation system gives no encouragement or credit for having recognized a good idea. Thus the power of the internet is highlighted in the negative light

Cut out the fat

[KrazzeeKooter]

Will somone just do a nationwide media campaign.

Cut out the fat!

The point being the music industry has turned into such a rich, self indulgent and all to powerful middle man. Let's just cut them out! Artist meet audience, audience meet artist. Screw the overindulgent and ungracious middleman! It's quite clear their lawsuits don't represent the artists at all, they're just trying to protect their big fat lucartive middle man position.

No registration

[Gudeldar]

First NYTimes article WITHOUT registration

NYT to replace The Onion!

[Squiggle]

Ms. Frank, the MTV executive, noted the limitations of unlimited customization, even amid unlimited access. For young Americans, she said, "because of the way they've trained themselves to use media, they never have to be exposed to an idea, an artist, or anything that they did not select for themselves."

I call BULLSHIT! Obvious this person is either lying straight out, misquoted, or an complete asshat if she works at MTV and doesn't understand what is going on. First, I'm willing to bet that kids (just like me) do research to find artists they like: especially the trend setters. Those that don't spend the time finding the good stuff are the sheep: they follow the trend setters. Thus, peer influences are going to be the biggest factor - and yes, MTV tries very, very hard to pass itself off as a peer, or at least showing "peers" watching and listening to the crap they play on MTV.

Thirdly (and most importantly), what the f8sck is wrong with people listening to the artists they choose themselves? The quote is implying that the kids aren't listening to what we told them to! "Whaaa! How can we use marketing to control people that make their own decisions!?" This is a great example the NYTimes doing what it does best. Here is an example of something really positive - people chosing what they like - and the Times spins it like it is some sort of terrible limitation. Unless the Times has replaced The Onion...

Re:Something I've never understood...

[MikeFM]

Is it plagiarism if the original author gave you permission to do so? Somehow it seems perfectly okay if the original author doesn't care.

If anybody should care, other than the original author, it should be the students doing it. Are they learning as much from copying as writing? Maybe they are, if they are actually reading to find what is best to copy, and if so what is the problem?

Of course I still think schools should not be allowed to grade their own students or issue them degrees. I'd rather see a sepperation between teaching and certification. Such that when you'd finished school you'd have to take a battery of tests from a third party to verify you'd learned everything required to get your degree. In such a case it really wouldn't matter if the student copied on their papers or not as long as they had learned everything required.

Already in practise to a limited extent...

[wing03]

We went to a baby and toddler products consumer show yesterday. One booth was selling CDs of music with your child's name in a number of songs.

It was a small booth and they might have had 20 CDs on display of the most popular children's names.

However, if your child's name wasn't on any of the disks they already had, you simply paid $20 (Canadian) and within an hour, you could come back and they'll have burned a disk and have a laser printed clear label.

Presumably, the owners had access to a studio, did a one time creation of a few instrumental tracks and sang/recorded the songs thousands of times.

Perfect example outside of writing software code on how this model works.

pirated email program?

[FooAtWFU]

"While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends."

Who uses a pirated email program? Web novices use a preinstalled Outlook Distress or equivalent, while experts use Mozilla or derivitaves. And corporate users use whatever the corporation installed.

Maybe some of the other allegations are true, but this one is just silly.

Culture analysis sucks

[Wylfing]

People have already pointed out the one interesting paragraph in the article (i.e., the music exec stealing a Forrester report). The article should have stopped there. I despise this kind of "culture analysis" article that aims to shed light on those rascally inscrutable teenagers. It reminds me of Better Off Dead, where the father reads a book called "How to Talk to Teenagers" and tries out slang but screws it up, e.g., "Right off!"

Here some great lines from the NYT article:

use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends. Uh, what? Who the hell pirates an email program?

If this is the democracy of the copy, it is enough to make one long for the elitism of creative genius. This is annoying in oh so many ways. OF COURSE people copy what artists create. It's normal behavior. In fact, it's normal for artists to copy other artists too. I'm really getting fed up with this idea that "creative genius" pops out of nowhere and isn't itself somehow a copy or a derivative.

Re: It IS a double standard

[ReelOddeeo]

No double standard, it's called "covering A$$es". These are what you call "contingency plans." Sony is trying to do everything they can to be in a good position, no matter how the matter with the RIAA turns out.

Talk about doublespeak! I found this post just downright amazing. I was flabbergasted!

It is a double standard. What you describe is exactly a double standard. When someone is supposedly so against something, at least in front of their peers, but then they support those who do it, or at least condone it, this is the very definition of a double standard.

The real crime...

[ruiner13]

"The New York Times writes that record industry executives who are adamant that file sharing is stealing are not above stealing themselves."

You mean like artificially keeping CD prices high by using your power as a monopoly to steal more money from people who like music? I'd say the record industry has been stealing from all of us for many, many years. I will not shed a tear about their tiny loss of profit that is probably more due to their inability to put out good music and alienating their customers than file "sharing".

Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n

[euxneks]

Personally, I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems, and less about how the RIAA is the Great Satan

I don't understand why _we_ are the ones that are supposed to come up with a business model for the RIAA...? Do we have to come up with a business model for every failing business that sues us when they lose money? That's _their_ job, not ours.

Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n

[16K Ram Pack]

After all, copyright protection is mandatory for great art to be produced.

No copyright - Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert. Copyright - N'Sync, Britney Spears, Eminem.

Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n

[turnstyle]

"No copyright - Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert. Copyright - N'Sync, Britney Spears, Eminem."

Fine, but don't forget Copyright also protects -- Jonny Cash, Ween, Marvin Gaye, The Clash, Brian Eno, Funkadelic, Charles Mingus and countless great people.

Just because you don't like some music doesn't really make your point. If you dont like N'Sync, Britney Spears, and Eminem just don't listen.

Back in Mozart's time, only a very tiny minority of artists could support themselves by being an artist, and that generally meant finding a rich benefactor. Are you telling me that's better?

quote

[lonesome phreak]

Ms. Frank, the MTV executive, noted the limitations of unlimited customization, even amid unlimited access. For young Americans, she said, "because of the way they've trained themselves to use media, they never have to be exposed to an idea, an artist, or anything that they did not select for themselves."

Yes, because people that d/l music and such live in a cave and never come out. Thy must make their own food and clothes too, because they are never exposed to an idea they did not select. I can't walk outside my house without being exposed to ideas I did not select. My neighbor's clothes, billboards, branding on food at the store...I am forced to look at these things just to survive. I don't really want to at times...

I think she should have said "They haven't been exposed enough to our ideas, our select artists, or all our other marketing campaigns because they feel they have freedom of choice."

Pirating?

[Tellalian]

While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends.

Because when faced with the choice of downloading untold numbers of movies, music, or expensive software like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office, the humble file trader always opts for that hot new copy of Outlook Express...?!

Watch out for this John Leland guy. He's in the know.

Re:Spill coffee, get rich.

[FreakinHippie]

The fact that they served coffee that hot to someone sitting in a CAR makes them partly responsible.

McDonald's is absolutely NOT responsible AT ALL! If the drive thru clerk spilled the coffee on the patron that would be a different story. However, if it is dangerous to have hot coffee in a CAR, then the lady should have had the sense not to purchase it in the drive through. After all, it is dangerous to simply hold a cup while driving, or anything other object for that matter.

Are you one of those people that think that bars that serve people who are obviously MORE than drunk are not partly responsible for that persons actions?

They most certainly are not! This whole argument is utter bullshit. The patron should be responsible for themselves! Blaming everyone else who is nearby for your own actions is a complete cop-out.

If you sell something to someone, you have certain responsibilities as a result of that action.

It has been said before, and I mostly agree that analogies are bad to use in an explanation. However, by this rational, the dealer of your car (if you own one) is responsible (at least partly, right?) when you get into an accident. This is patently absurd.

Full text: critique of file sharing

[Hatta]

Sept. 12, 2003 | As the record industry prepares hundreds of lawsuits targeting people suspected of illegally copying music over the Internet, a broad coalition of leading academics and civil libertarians is standing up for "file sharing" with the intention of ushering in a new copyright system.

Case in point: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, longtime defender of free speech and privacy online, is sponsoring an advertising campaign with the slogan "File Sharing: It's Music to Our Ears." Seeking to recruit new members who are "tired of being treated like a criminal for sharing music online," the ad's message is clear: It's cool to copy music, regardless of the copyright status.

The EFF's goal, like that of many legal scholars, software coders and media pundits, is a new system of compensation for copyright holders that would legitimize file sharing, generally through some new tax on Internet use that would be redistributed to content creators.

But the tacit endorsement of copyright violation seems intended to force the change rather than open it to debate: The more people engage in file sharing, the stronger the case that it can't be stopped, and that our current system of copyright must therefore be scrapped.

This is a bad idea propagated in bad faith. Rather than cheering on file sharing, the EFF should be presenting us with the details of its alternative so that we can measure it against our current copyright system, and collectively decide which system we prefer.

The major record companies -- mostly in the guise of their lobbying group, the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA -- have been widely criticized as being heavy-handed in their response to file sharing. But the tactics and goals of those leading the charge against them have generally avoided scrutiny. It's time to take a closer look.

Music industry critics would have us believe that their objective is to rein in an evil cartel, but there's much more to it than that. Their intention is to dictate new terms to all digital authors, regardless of whether they are working for an oligopoly or toiling away in a garage.

As an independent software developer, I don't much appreciate the effort to recast copying others' work as a cool and revolutionary act. What's worse, civil liberties advocates are promoting alternative systems that compromise free speech and privacy, bedrock principles that we have traditionally relied on them to defend.

The first thing to note is that this debate isn't just about music, it is about copyright in general. All leading file-sharing applications are designed to copy any kind of file. If the goal is to legitimize the activity over these peer-to-peer (P2P) networks through a new tax, then we should expect such a system to apply to all digital works -- not just music, but also movies, software, photographs, ebooks and so on.

So how is free speech compromised?

Under these alternative systems, compensation for cultural expression is shifted to governmental control -- the government collects the tax, divides it up, and pays the artists. But this is also the same government that has a long record of denying public funding for "offensive" art.

As a simple example, consider that pornography makes up as much as 40 percent of file-sharing traffic. Are we to believe that those copyright holders would receive their proportionate share of the P2P tax? It seems far more likely that the government will instead decide to exclude "adult" works, drawing a line between art and offense.

This isn't just about porn. The FCC regularly censors the infamous "seven dirty words" from public airwaves, and it's a safe bet that the trend will continue with P2P payouts -- certain works will be deemed not worthy of compensation by public funds.

There is no reason to believe that the First Amendment would apply here -- after all, nothing would

Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n

[nobody69]

Back in Mozart's time, only a very tiny minority of artists could support themselves by being an artist, and that generally meant finding a rich benefactor. Are you telling me that's better?

A thought just popped into my head (insert joke here). That's really not that different than what we have now. Most of the people who are musicians do not support themselves full time in that manner and probably spend more on their career/hobby than they make. Most of the few who do have contracts with record companies (of wildly varying sizes), giving them in effect, rich benefactors (who may be trying to screw them). Sony == Emperor of Austria, while indie label == Prince of Tinyhaven. Of course, irking the Emperor means you may lose your head, while irking CEO of Sony means No Contract For You. Just a thought anyway.