Slashdot Mirror
Suing Your Customers a Good Idea?
VB writes "Boycott-RIAA is running Fred von Lohmann's article which looks like the ideal answer to solving the P2P problem. He suggests setting up a payment system similar to SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI, collecting organizations for songwriters. This seems such an obvious solution and a great way to get artists paid and give listeners the right to listen to their favorite songs cheaply and keep them out of jail. Why wouldn't this work?"
Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this all about money?
Why wouldn't this work?
Simply put, because RIAA doesn't want competition.
Steal This Sig
Is there a way for you to claim your artist redistribution royalties if you put your own music on the CD? Someone needs to fight that tax in the court system.
doesn't allow the maximum of money to be squeezed out of the punter, and thus will be fought tooth and nail by the guys who are in charge of the "industry" - the RIAA et al. as opposed to the artists.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
There is a reason that this sort of payment system is ludicrous. The recording industry already gets federal subsidies from our taxes to compensate them for the "inevitable" acts of copyright violation that every citizen already commits. Their lobby convinced the politicians that everyone is a pirate and the only way to stop it is to have the government reimburse them for it. They are already getting paid by us once; they shouldn't get to put their hand in the cookie jar a second time. As far as I'm concerned my taxes have already paid for any and all copyright violations, which gives me the legal right to do as I damn well please with p2p software.
Because lots and lots and lots of people are now used to getting music for free. They don't care enough about the artists to pay for it now, why would that change?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Why should entertainment product distributors (who this is really about) get special dispensation from technological advances? If the business model is built on an insecure foundation, change the model. Official goverment tithing on behalf of (foreign!) corporations who have yet to conclusively demonstrate harm from sharing is an appalling idea, one that shifts the relationship between citizens, corporations and governments.
Why wouldn't this work? because lawsuits are expensive - look at sco.. hmm spend loads to collect $699 - it just dosent make sense.
I had a lot of things I wanted to say about this, but you've summarized it so concisely.
The problem with the system of paying artists directly is that the people with the money in the middle that want to make a lot of money by leveraging a small investment (the artist) in order to harvest a large return (from the consumers, the masses, etc.) are not involved. And the problem with that, of course, is that the people with the money are also the people with influence and power in high places that can lobby and get laws passed to ensure that they continue to enjoy the ability to reap profits by acting as gatekeepers between the people and the things they want. As long as they keep control of that, they will make money.
Ultimately, that's the sinister nature of the RIAA companies. But keep in mind that corporations exist for the purpose of making money. And there's no better way of making money and lots of it, and easily, by using these techniques to fully exploit all of us.
If you thought the Matrix was merely futuristic and philosophical, then think of it a bit more - think of it as a metaphor for the system that we live in now. Think of the Matrix as the capitalistic system, think of the machines as the corporations. Then think of the people as....people. Think of the power they were harvesting as money....think of the "life" the Matrix was providing to the people in their pods as the music/movie being provided to us in return...
We ARE in the Matrix, now, and have been as long as civilzation has been around.
Well, in theory they're not suing their customers. "Customers" are people who pay for stuff. If you're "stealing music" or "infringing copyright", you're not their customer; they get more money out of you by suing you, because it's not like they want your continued goodwill.
Of course practice is more complicated than theory, especially in the case of those who obtain music peer-to-peer as "free samples" and then go out and buy the album. And of course those who are just defending their constitutionally-guaranteed right to fair use (that is, the 71 minues of music you're entitled to download, but not the actual plastic of the disk, because your best friend already bought that, or maybe some guy in Ankara or Boise or somewhere named "kazaaliteuser").
they can do whatever the hell they want. They've got a monopoly. Scratch that, what they've got is even better. They control all the important distribution channels, but since there are plenty of small (mostly inconsequencial) channels available nobody prosecutes them. It's the best of both worlds. So yes, suing is good for them.
Moreover, most people know what they're doing is illegal, and therefore think it's morally wrong. Nevermind who fscked up the whole system is. So when the shit hits the fan and people start getting sued, there isn't a lot of sympathy out there for them.
Finally, people are lazy and dumb and don't care about anything until it affects them directly (and noticably). Get 100 people in a room and see how many know what copyright is, let alone that people are being sued over it. Most people I talk to only know downloading is illegal because they know the stuff is sold in stores and they're smart enough to know that if they're getting it free, something's wrong. I'm met tons of people paying a monthly fee to some 3rd rate Kazaa knockoff who think everything they download is perfectly legal because they 'pay' for it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Maybe suing your customer is a good idea to make sure it is a one-off customer and to make sure you don't have any other customers. Ever.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
The recording industry as we know it is obsolete. It was created out of a need of distribution when recording was first invented. That need simply no longer exists. I personally do not believe there is another business model that will maintain the status quo for the wealth that is pouring into this industry. Of course music will not go away, but will rather revert back to the system it was before, word of mouth, concerts, etc. With popularity driven wholly by the listeners, musical quality and diversity will increase, sparing us from no talent industry manufactured stars.
And who would pay for all the marketing of the music? I know this is not a popular thing to bring up on Slashdot, but it takes a lot of money to market music. It's one of the reason bands want to sign a record deal, it's not just for the distribution, it's because the record company will promote the music. That doesn't come cheap in todays market.
When a band gets an album cover on the front page of iTunes, do you think that's because it's good? No, it's because the record company paid for "placement", just like they do with the big posters in the windows of Tower Records. That stuff doesn't happen for free.
We can all wish for some utopia world where the best music sells the most, but it doesn't work that way. If it did, Linux would be #1, not Windows.
suing you employer and still expect to have a job the next day.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
It's probably already happened too..
RIAA Says you pirated music and shows the titles you pirated. Gives you 30 days to respond if you intend to pay or go to court. You dont respond so they consider their claim valid and hire a collection agency to begin a collection process. Of which they threaten your credit rating and such.
I'm sure it will eventually happen and those who have agreed to pay who dont may face this situation.
No, it takes a lot of money to market shitty music and make it appeal to the mindless by making it "seem" popular. Good music, like good books, can and does sell itself through word-of-mouth and mild exposure. People sharing what they like with friends* is a cheap, effective way for worthwhile stuff to get heard and spread around. Hell, how did Metallica ever get their fanbase but through fans passing around tapes?
*(Note that this is not an endorsement, or even an accurate description, of P2P.)
Remove the marketing dollars of the corporate labels, and "natural selection" will clear out a lot of the cruft from the stores and airwaves and make way for the good stuff. Less choice? Sure. But the percentage of good choices available will go up.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
The problem is that shitty and good are subjective. What you find shitty, I might like, or vice versa, and yet we can still be friends (well, unless your friendships are so shallow that you can't be friends with someone who doesn't like the same music as you). Your analogy then breaks down, because you share with me music you think is good, and I just find it shitty. Not that marketing fixes this, or even does what it's supposed to do (introduce us to new bands and music, not just keep pushing the same ol' tripe), but word of mouth doesn't work much better.
What makes you think the good bands won't go away with the bad ones? What if my favorite band is deemed as "bad", and goes away? Do I not have the right to like whatever music I want? I find it funny that the average Slashdotter wails away time and again for choice (more web browsers, more operating systems, more linux distributions, more media players, more office suites, etc), but they can turn on a dime and beg for less choice. What makes you think your preferences will be the ones retained? "Crap" like boy bands, Britney Spears, etc, are proven money makers* so even if labels dropped most of their marketing they'd not go away.
* Why does that crap** make so much money? It's because music's prime money-making demographic is teenage girls, and that crap music is targetted squarely at them.
** Obviously my usage of "crap" is subjective, reflecting my own tastes. For example, I also think most (read: all) techno/house/electronica/d&b/dance music is utter crap. If the revolution comes, I hope that tripe is right up their with Britney for removal. In fact, I can stand more Britney tunes than I can techno crap.
Exploitation of people exists in every system. Unfortunately I think it is in the nature of political systems. It certainly exists in Capitalism, but was worse in Feudalism and arguably worse in Soviet Communism.
There will *always* be predatory people. It is *not* a function of the economic system but rather a function of the nature of human politics.
The goal, IMO, is not to eliminate such exploitation but to make sure that a) the public good is defended and b) that there are checks and balances that prevent such exploitation from getting out of hand.
Unfortunately, the RIAA has subverted the public good with very little discussion or debate, and to date, there are precious few checks and balances on that system.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
>You are free to go to a part of the world like :^)
>North Korea and "unplug yourself" from this evil
>"Matrix" of capitalistic greed anytime you want to.
>You just have to leave your computer at home
So you think that the existence of a country that's supposed to be an awful place is an excuse not to make your own country a better place to live?
Jeesus - seems like things haven't got much better in the US since McCarthyism was around.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
North Korea is not better - they are also part of a Matrix, albeit a more overt one. I suppose I am a hypocrite for being judgmental about the things that allow me to live the very prosperous life style I lead.
The "Matrix" I refer to in regards to the capitalistic system is very much the same as the one in the movie. Most people aren't aware they are in it (either by choice or not).
Capitalism is not inherent good or evil. However, people can do "evil" tihngs because of capitalistm. There are countless stories of corporations, in order to improve the bottom line, do things that are immoral or downright illegal. Or to borrow from the gun lobby, "Capitalism doesn't commit crimes (or rip people off, or exploit third world cheap labor, or outsource jobs, people/corporations do)."
So it is with RIAA - they do what they do because it is in their best interest to maximize profits. If they believe suing people will maximize their profits, they will do so. Look at SCO - they believe that at this point, suing people will make them money. They are in the business of making money, not of providing superior product. The same goes for Microsoft. Of course, the whole idea is supposed to be:
1. provide superior product
2. get more market share
3. profit!
But when you are in control (i.e. monopolistic), or if you are truly desperate and are no longer competitive (i.e. SCO), then you will seek out other means.
And please let us not underestimate greed. Remember Enron?
Copyright collective as a solution to the music p2p problem is not a new idea. Downhillbattle.org and the EFF have been saying that Voluntary Collective Licensing is the ideal solution for quite some time already. Even The Recording Industry Ass. Of America could get a piece of that money, even though it should go mostly to the artists.
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
"Hell, how did Metallica ever get their fanbase but through fans passing around tapes?"
And lost it as quickly for condemning the same.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.