Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Suing Your Customers a Good Idea?

Posted by michael on from the nothing-better-comes-to-mind dept.

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?"

76 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by spikestabber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this all about money?

    1. Re:Why? by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because then the RIAA would not have control. Since when was this all about money?

      Since the purpose of control became the ability to extract money.

      KFG

    2. Re:Why? by spikestabber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The RIAA seems to think having a monopoly is the only way. They're making enough money, CD sales are up yet again, so where is this entirely about money? It's greed. The more they make the more they want.

    3. Re:Why? by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yep. This is not about loss of sales of CDs. It is about loss of control by musicians able to do their own thing. That is, they can start on the internet and grow themselves WITHOUT a label. That terrifies all of the labels. When Movies can be made cheaply (which is coming), then we will see MPAA going ape all over the internet.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Why? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2, Informative
      CD sales are up yet again...

      Not according to Reuters they're not. Music revenues are up but not CD sales.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    5. Re:Why? by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The RIAA exists to serve the artists. . .

      Where on earth did you ever get that idea? The RIAA is the trade association of the record labels.

      Can they do anything without the RIAA's blessings?

      If 'their' recordings are the 'intellectual property' of an RIAA member, no.

      What they can do, in future, is not allow themselves to be bought into the system. The system, however, has created a very powerful, but false, impression that it is a necessary componant to record, release and sell music.

      It may still be a necessary componant to achieve fame in the music business, but I might also argue that those in the business for fame aren't people I would call artists.

      Go it alone. Raise your own money, take your own risks and make your own art. Own yourself. It gets cheaper and easier every day. Be happy with this whatever it brings in terms of money and fame.It's what the RIAA fears most.

      Fuck the 'industry' and the horse it rode in on. Music is about people.

      KFG

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In other news, sales of vinyl records have dropped dramatically since the 80s.

    7. Re:Why? by B'Trey · · Score: 4, Informative

      From Ars Technica: ...the numbers that the RIAA uses to talk about "sales" are actually just numbers relating to shipments. The gist of it is pretty simple: the RIAA has their own tracking system based on units shipped, while Nielsen Ratings bases their Soundscan tracking system on actual barcode-scanned purchases. The problem is that Soundscan shows a 10% increase in music sales when comparing the first quarter of 2004 to 1Q 2003.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    8. Re:Why? by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are quoting a trade association marketing brochure. Not a fact.

      In point of fact one of the functions of the RIAA is to insure that the artist's First Amendment rights get assigned to the record labels.

      This is now done automatically, by law (since a sound recording has now been defined as a work for hire by the label).

      The artist is left with no more First Amendment rights to his own works than any random bum on the street.

      What that phrase really means is that they work to protect the record labels from actions against the content of the recordings they own, since this would cost the label money, not the artist.

      As the blurb notes there are associations to protect the rights of songwriters, but none to protect the rights of recording artists ( and usually to get a first record deal you have to sign away your songwriter's rights to the music publishing company owned by the record label).

      KFG

    9. Re:Why? by perlchild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to confuse the RIAA needing artists with the RIAA being interested in individual artists' well being.
      Most RIAA members extort so much money from artists, several artists either start their own company, or have tried to get the system rebuilt from the ground up, since the original basis for the system, record production, is now only one aspect of the marketing and success of an individual artist. That the RIAA members act as much as a bank loaning money to the artist for everything, and yet ultimately decides what the money is used for makes a strong case for a large push for change in the system.

      When RIAA members say they are protecting the artists, it's a large joke, because the one actor in this field from whom the artist should be protected, at least until the artist is a multimillionaire himself, is the RIAA member.

    10. Re:Why? by Psychochild · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Go it alone. Raise your own money, take your own risks and make your own art. Own yourself. It gets cheaper and easier every day. Be happy with this whatever it brings in terms of money and fame.It's what the RIAA fears most.

      I agree with that. I'm an artist (a game developer instead of a musician, though), and I've sacrificed deep to remain independent of the machinery of the computer games industry which parallels the music industry. It's not been easy, and I'm still deeply in debt financing this.

      The thing that most people forget is that the same intellectual property laws which allow large companies like the RIAA to fuck over the artist also protect the little guy from being equally fucked over by the large companies. You might complain about the abuses of the large companies using intellectual property laws, but without the laws it'd be even worse.

      Let me give an example. Let's say I'm a musician and I put together a few songs of my own. Believing that "information wants to be free", I put my songs up on a website and ask for donations or even offer to ship a CD to someone who gives me a little cash. But, now a large publisher finds out about my songs and visits my site. They take the songs, produce a CD, and I never see a dime from it. The large publisher has the advertising and distribution system to do this, and I'm powerless. And before some idiot comes along and says, "But, that's free advertising for you!" let me say this: What makes you think the publisher is going to put my name on the CD they publish? They have no incentive to do so. In fact, they have incentive to put someone else's name on it, so that they can pay that person peanuts to go lip-synch my songs in front of crowds of screaming fans instead of paying me a decent amount of money to live on.

      Yes, I'll agree that the current intellectual property laws are insane. The copyright extensions of "forever minus one day" are just stupid (and I'm a registered copyright holder). But, to abolish intellectual property laws because of this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's real value in protecting the intellectual property of artists so that they can continue to create art, even if this intent has been perverted by the large companies.

      Finally, let me say that real change starts with the individual consumer. Everyone here has the real power if they choose to use it. Don't like what the big companies do to artists? Find an independent and support them. The more of us independents that are able to live off of our art, the more it will be seen as a legitimate alternative to the big money machine that crushes the artists. I know in the games industry, people hate what the big publishers do to game developers; the publishers chew them up and spit them out. But, until there's a real, rational way to make a decent amount of money outside of selling your soul to the publisher, only a small number of us are going to risk financial ruin to do what we love independent of the large publishers. Go find an indie game developer, a small local band, or whatever. Let them know that you support them. Encourage them to stay away from the big machine, and to remain independent and free. Get your friends to do the same. This will effect real change instead of posting on Slashdot about how suing P2P users is unfair because people want free music, games, whatever.

      Support independent artists and you'll see a real change.

      Have fun,

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
    11. Re:Why? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ask Prince. And James Brown. And any number of other artists who had to fight tooth and nail against their record labels for permission to perform works that they composed and performed.

      The RIAA being about the 1st Amendment is like the Czech secret police being about Miranda rights.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Why? by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you know that as a songwriter you can get sued for posting your own lyrics to the web? Or that you can owe someone money for performing your own works?

      The First Amendment and copyright are inextricably linked, since copyright is an overt Constitutional restriction of First Amenedment rights. That's what it's there for.

      If the labels are actually interested in protecting the First Amendment rights of artists to free expression in their lyrics, why do they force artists to create bowdlerized versions of their songs to be sold (unlabeled as bowdlerized versions) in Wal-Mart? Or, if the artist refuses to cooperate, simply have an engineer punch in bowdlerization against the artist's wishes?

      The anwer is because they don't give a fuck about the artist's First Amendment rights. They care about their own ability to sell things without getting sued or otherwise restricted by law. The label owns the recording and is liable, not the artist.

      As a street performer of 20 years I'm well aware of what the First Amendment covers, my very freedom is occasionally dependent upon such knowledge, but as a songwriter and recording artist I'm also aware of how copyright issues effect those First Amendment rights and when you make a recording for Sony you assign those rights, by contract and by law, to Sony.

      And the RIAA represents Sony, not the artist, and the marketers, lobbiests and lawyers who work for the RIAA know exactly who their client is.

      There's a word for artists who believe in and rely on the RIAA to represent their interests:

      Fucked.

      KFG

  2. Because... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why wouldn't this work?

    Because this system doesn't give the RIAA their share.

    1. Re:Because... by DeepDarkSky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Because... by gilgongo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >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?"
    3. Re:Because... by DeepDarkSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:Because... by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Capitalism requires a free market. Having the RIAA stand as the middleman between music makers and music buyers through oligopolistic practices and then attempting to enforce that oligopoly by buying laws is hardly a function of the free market.

      The RIAA has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. There's a bloke named Adam Smith who did a pretty good job of explaining how the free market works if you need an education in what capitalism actually is.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  3. Just like an added tax to blanks by Datagod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sounds too much like what happens in Canada, where an extra fee is included in the price of most blank media. This fee is SUPPOSED to be re-distributed to the artists, but it rarely is. It is just another case of assuming people are only interested in copying music, never anything else like actual backups, or even recording your own music. Bunch of bozos.

    1. Re:Just like an added tax to blanks by ari_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Just like an added tax to blanks by LearnToSpell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      America has the same thing (although significantly less - under six cents per CD), but it's not disclosed the way it is in Canada. In both cases, the money is distributed based on album sales, so if you burn Red Hat, Bryan Adams and Madonna get a cut.

      --
      Haida Manga
    3. Re:Just like an added tax to blanks by optimus2861 · · Score: 3, Informative
      When the copyright board here in Canada was hearing proposals from the industry about seriously ramping up those levies, I actually took the time to write to the Minister of Heritage (at the time, Shiela Copps, that spend-happy windbag) to express my opposition to the increases in specific and the levies in general. I raised the points you did, about making everyone pay into this system even if they have nothing to do with copying music, using my own situation as an engineer needing to make backups of files to CD-R on a regular basis.

      I can't say I was surprised by the reply I got back. It hit on every recording industry talking point you can name -- "file-sharing hurting the artists", "fairly compensate recording artists", etc, and didn't even touch the points I had raised. I just chucked it at that point.

      Fortunately the board did see some sanity and denied a bunch of the levies the recording industry wanted (like the 0.8cents per MB of flash memory) -- this time, anyway.

    4. Re:Just like an added tax to blanks by DragonMagic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yet another reason not to use Red Hat.

      Oh, I get it...

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
  4. Maybe by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe suing your customer is a good idea if it is a one-off customer and you don't expect to have any other customers. Ever.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:Maybe by ThogScully · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe suing your customer is a good idea if it is a one-off customer and you don't expect to have any other customers. Ever.

      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...
  5. The Obvious by z0ink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why wouldn't this work?

    Simply put, because RIAA doesn't want competition.

    --
    Steal This Sig
  6. Interested in this? Join the PHO list. by linuxbaby · · Score: 4, Informative
    Anyone interested in this subject should look into the Pho list: http://www.pholist.org/

    It's an email list with people talking about the digital delivery of art and the convergence of entertainment and technology.

    Bunch of people there talking about this subject every day (and have been for years).

  7. we'll sue the pants off of them! by knowles420 · · Score: 5, Funny

    then we'll sell them pants!

    --
    -knowles
  8. Because this system by ProudClod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Screw the corporate pigopolists. by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Screw the corporate pigopolists. by Performaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought part of the US legal system was "Innocent untill proven guilty."
      Now I guess it's "Innocent untill proven broke."

      --

      I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
  10. Why wouldn't it work? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Why wouldn't it work? by Izago909 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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?
      So the pirates are to blame for the price fixing and monopolistic behavior of the record industry? Are they also to blame for the fact that most pop/rock albums are released that have one or two good tracks and the rest filled with studio B sides? Recordings like "Best Of" compilations and Live recordings are pirated at a much, much lower rate than the average album.

      Your argument of "Won't anyone please think of the artists" would be much more paletable if the money for recodes went to the artists. Unfortunately, the reason the RIAA is a lot pissier than the artists is because the overwhelming majority goes to the corporations. When artists collect royalties for albums measured in cents, I don't think the RIAA is doing all of this because of their deep concern for their artists profits.
    2. Re:Why wouldn't it work? by Epistax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've donated money to many software projects. I've illegally downloaded software. I will continue to do both. By your logic, I don't think I exist.

    3. Re:Why wouldn't it work? by Apreche · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you've got it wrong. It's not that I'm used to getting music for free. I actually believe that music must and should be free. In fact, all information should be free. Recorded music is just that, information. I care about artists though, they are people and I care about people. What people have to understand is this. In a world where all recorded music was free, and nobody expected it to cost money, people who love music will still make music. If those people want to make a living from music they will set up a very economical system by which they will profit from live performances and merchandise. And maybe someone will think up a new way to make money from music besides selling recordings. *gasp*

      The best thing is that in a world such as this, which I am pushing for, there will be no super wealthy musicians. I don't know why people have this expecations that artists deserve to be super rich. What's wrong with being a middle class musician? You'r not going hungry.

      Music will never die. Musicians will always be around and people will support them. Only the corporate recording studio structure, the super rich megastars with no talent and all image, the giant stadium concerts filled with lights and pyrotechnics. These are the things that will go away. But people will still make music, if only for their own happiness and the happiness of others. Just like programmers will continue to make software for nothing. This is the world we are heading towards. There is no stopping it as long as we keep pushing.

      Do not pay for recorded music. Do not pay for software. Do not pay for information. Eventually the corporate structure will either crumble or change. This event will truly lead us to a freer society.

      In short. Fuck those people at the record companies who make money and aren't even the people playing the music. And fuck those people with no musical talent riding MTV to fortunes of cash. Hooray for the people making music because they love to. Let those people develop a new business model whereby they can sustain themselves doing something they love.

      --
      The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    4. Re:Why wouldn't it work? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sugjest that you tell your boss that your willing to work for free. Since you think my time isn't worth money I assume you think the same of yourself.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:Why wouldn't it work? by Epistax · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm afraid of the 30% of people who found my post "informative"

    6. Re:Why wouldn't it work? by Psychochild · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't let this pass.

      In short. Fuck those people at the record companies who make money and aren't even the people playing the music. And fuck those people with no musical talent riding MTV to fortunes of cash.

      And fuck the people that create their art out of love but won't ever be able to complete it because they have to work a day job to pay for rent and food. This statement is a natural extension of your philosophy.

      I hate to rely on stereotypes, but I took a look at your linked blog. Go graduate from school first, then we can talk about how much you think that all information should be free when you find your job options severely limited. Life's a lot harder than napping in class and doodling on your notebook.

      As a game developer that puts in 16 hour days to maintain and create games, I know how demanding it is to actually work at creating "art". Your suggestion simply doesn't work for games, since the market often demands the latest and greatest technology. A game in development for two years already has to worry about looking "old". A game in development longer because everyone had to hold down day jobs at McDonalds just isn't going to make it.

      A more constructive attitude is to say that you'll support the independents. Go find a local band that you like and buy their CD. Find a independent game you like and actually send in the shareware payment instead of playing it for free. Or, sign up for an independent online game for a few months and pay the subscription for a bit. You'll see a lot more useful change in the market than taking the "fuck the artist, I want my shit for free!" attitude. In fact, you're just guaranteeing that the only way an artist CAN make money is to join a large company that has the resources to sue people that have this attitude.

      Some thoughts from a struggling artist,

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
  11. Why? by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Suing customers by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny
    I have always thought that suing customers is a great idea! It has all the benefits of:


    - Sucking them dry for every penny you can get out of them.
    - Free publicity from trials.
    - Insures the next time they go to buy, they will think of your company first.

    Any others that you guys can think up?

    --
    I Am My Own Worst Enemy
  13. Suing your customers? by jfengel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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").

  14. My solution by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, I think the solution would be to simply make it a misdemeanor to upload or download music to or from the general public without permission of the copyright holder. Make a small but unpleasant fine (say $100), and make it easy to actually find and charge the file sharers, and very easy to fight if you're wrongly accused.

    My problem with the lawsuits, is that it all seems so unfair. Even if people are costing the record industry money, it's highly unlikely that anybody is costing them several thousand dollars. I seriosuly doubt that most of these people charged innocent, and I don't agree that this is fair use, but the response is wrong.

    Firstly, in much the same way as I don't approve of the death penalty for pickpockets, I also don't agree that these lawsuits are an appropriate response for file sharers.

    Secondly, if the crime is really bad enough to justify a punitive fine, it should be considered a criminal offence. I have never agreed that the civil courts should be able to charge punitive damages. If someone is to be punished, then they should have the rights of all criminals, and be sentenced based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Not a mere balance of probabilities.

    1. Re:My solution by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doh! IHBT. I apologise for being slow. Well, I realised the end bit was just a joke, but you did make some interesting points. Mainly that to make a law regarding copyright infringement, you need the RIAA's backing.

      So, I'll finish off with "You soulless minion of the evil copyright monopolists! All you care about is profit, when hard working millionaire artists are starving!"

      I don't think a real solution is going to be possible until some radical event intervenes, most likely including the collapse of the RIAA. The RIAA will die, but the music industry will get along just fine without them.

      Yes. Causing a cartel to collapse can take time, but it will happen if someone finds a way to pay the musicians more, and charge the customers less.

    2. Re:My solution by Alsee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oop, I didn't mean it as a troll :)
      And my post probably did need the Terrorism comment to tip the subtlty balance. I missed adding it by a split-second on the submit button.

      Oh, and I just remebered one varient I worked out for paying musicians. The music industry is like 12 (14?) billion or so. If you assume the artists actually get 10% of that, one point something billion (we only need to pay the artists if we don't need publishers to do anything anymore), and 300 million people in the country, it works out to about $4 per person per year. Four freaking dollars per year! If you paid it out of the the Fed budget (ordinary taxes) then you could drop all copyright on music. Not just P2P, but record stores could simply press and sell CD's dirt cheap. And since the Fed budget comes from progressive taxes that means the poor would only pay a dollar or two per year and the wealthiest would pay maybe $20 per year, still practically the price of a single CD.

      It may be "communist", but it's damn efficient. And it avoids the issue of people not signing up to pay, a distinct problem of the Slashdot-linked proposal.

      I for one would be more than happy to pay an extra $4 per year in taxes to make this whole copyfight go away.

      Hmm... cool... copyfight is only one letter off copyright. Didn't even notice that when I first wrote it. Google gives 27,800 hits on copyfight, so I guess I'm not the first to coin it :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  15. They own the market by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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/
  16. What songs can't they legally buy? by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most people's musical interest is in purely mainstream stuff that can be easily acquired legally on a service like iTMS. For those who can't find it there, this makes sense, but please, don't give me that excuse that you can't find most of the MTV/CMT hits on iTMS.

    The thing that has always been a thorn in the side of those who don't abuse P2P are the users that download stuff that they could easily have gotten legally because they're too cheap to pay for mainstream stuff. Stuff like that really makes it hard to defend P2P, and that's sad IMO.

    I'm sorry, but if you're downloading Brittney Spears or something like that, you have no excuse. Pay The Man. If it's some obscure band, then no big deal since you probably couldn't find a way to legitimately pay for it. Just remember, most of the cool bands out there that don't make too much money are subsidized by the teenieboppers who buy the pop junk. The profitability of the latter covers the lack thereof in the former and gives us more options, not that I'm suggesting that we buy the pop shit just to subsidize our favorite bands.

    Ultimately the biggest barrier to this system working is the credit card processors. If they didn't charge so much for small transactions then micropayments would be possible and practical.

    --
    Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
  17. Show us the law? by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not that i don't believe you, but it would be nice to know exactally where it states they are getting tax dollars to show people what is going on.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Show us the law? by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is a short list. Some are in America, others are global. Remember the blank audio tape tax passed in the 80's? It's still in effect as well as a more modern blank CD and CD/DVD burner tax.

      http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/
      http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-891781.html
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/riaa_sues_ moreschools/
      http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jan/gee20030 120018251.htm

      And here is some info on blank CD taxes in the US and around the world.

      Please note that not all of these "taxes" are government taxes in the traditional sense. There are a couple of important questions you should ask yourself though. If every blank CD and new CD/DVD recorder has a tax that is paid to the RIAA (not the artists) as compensation for copyrigt violations, does that mean that we are now free to pirate music since the fine has been paid in advance? Do you believe in corporate welfare? Also, should the public allow tax money to be used to fund governmental investigations into civil matters, such as copyright violations, if said findings are only used to support the corporation (favoring a corporate entity over individual citizen)? Please keep in mind, unless it is bootleging on a massive scale and/or the fradulent copies are sold for profit, it is a civil matter.

      Don't forget, we have allowed our rights to me limited more and more over the last couple decades. The media taxes, DMCA, copyright extensions, and many others have made the corporate job of enforcement easier at the expense of personal liberties. The DMCA in paticular only added a few new corporate rights, but was intended to make enforcement/prevention easier at the expense of, lets say, fair use or personal privacy. Not only have we given these corporations laws to make their lives easier, they have the nerve to turn around and say they need tax money because they don't have enough of their own to spend in their defense. It's the equavilent of erasing the fifth ammendment, handing over incriminating evidence, and funding the prosecution.

  18. Another (Longer) Article... by Landaras · · Score: 4, Informative

    About a week ago Lawrence Lessig mentioned a new book called Promises to Keep . The book, written by Prof. William Fisher, chronicles a bit of entertainment industry history and the various "alternatives we face for protecting copyright in a digital age" (to use Lessig's phrase).

    Chapter Six is freely available (66-page PDF), and in that chapter an alternative compensation system proposed by Fisher (not entirely unlike Von Lohmann's from the main article) is outlined in excruciating detail. This detail includes specific cost and savings estimates.

    What makes Fisher's proposal interesting is that he also includes a mechanism to allow derivative works to be created, and for both deriving and derived authors to be compensated.

    - Neil Wehneman

    --
    My legal education, in nifty podcast format
  19. The recording industry is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:RIAA- superfluous? by Romeozulu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. It's as good of an idea as by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  22. The title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Suing Your Customers a Good Idea?"

    That's just it. They are suing those who AREN'T their customers. Customers implies buying. If you are downloading (I do it all the time, won't deny it), you aren't buying.

    What is hard to understand about that? The RIAA isn't hurting any of their potential customers by this.

    If I shoot the kid who stole a candy bar in my store, did I just kill a customer (and lose profit) ? Certainly not!

    The Independent Council of Music Listeners in North America (ICMNA) deemed that over 97% of those who download will not end up making a purchase of THAT PARTICULAR recording. That isn't to say they won't buy other brands. But who is to say thats even the same label?

  23. Could Be Worse by Bruha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. the RIAA aren't the only sleazy ones by chimpo13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been in bands on several labels not dealing with the RIAA and have been treated fair. I've also been with other labels and have been ripped off.

    For instance, right now the Star Trek band I'm in, is on a compilation for Trekkies 2. That label's payment seems to be 6 CDs marked "FOR PROMO USE ONLY". Not a surprise for us -- we expected it -- but some of the other bands on that comp have been bitching.

    Not only do the bands not get paid, but they were told to buy copies of the CD from amazon because the label WON'T sell copies to bands. That's a nice step of sleaziness that I haven't heard of before. Ensuring that the bands can't even get beer money selling CDs at shows, and trying to get them to boost the amazon rating for a CD that 99.99999999999 of the population wouldn't listen to even if it was free.

    Sheesh.

    --
    riding round the world on an old motorcycle
  25. Re:RIAA- superfluous? by hiryuu · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    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.
  26. Because they'll never pay the artists by JimmyJava · · Score: 5, Informative

    ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI (of which I am an affiliate) don't pay most of their artists. Their collection scheme is somewhat misleading. For the most part, they only pay artists that gross over a certain amount, that make a certain amount of money on tour, sell a certain number of records, and have a significant amount of airplay. So basically only Britney Spears gets paid, and the millions of artists that are touring and sell a small number of records through distribution often never see the money. I know I never have.
    The Performers Rights Organizations (PRO's) are in bed with the RIAA and the record labels. If anyone is ripping the artists off, it's the labels and the PRO's, not the filetraders. I refer you to a brilliant article at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html written by Steve Albini, producer of Nirvana's "In Utero" and mastermind behind the band Big Black.

  27. Suing your customers? by ImTwoSlick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why do I keep hearing people on /. using this phrase? Is it because it carries more shock value? I'm not a fan of the RIAA or their practices, but the people they are suing (warrented or not) are serving out thousands of songs. In this fashon, they are not acting as customers of the RIAA.

  28. Production Costs and Times of Innocence Lost by oobob · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's the great thing about the internet. All I need to make music are some instruments, a way to hook up the audio out to my computer, and a piece of software to record and edit that sound. I could then distribute that to the entire world. This is the key point that gets missed in these little flamewars. Piracy and the trampling of our rights are side effects of an underlying issue (and while it is important and neccesary to fight for them, property rights are sacred and unassailable territory in America, never mind that these morons around us have never fucking read anything about any philosophy that might suggest reasonable limitations on these rights).

    The real reason they're scared is because the internet makes them obsolete. The only problem is that they won't become so until everyone ignores them. Listen to techno (good techno, big difference) with labels like WARP and other indy music with reasonable digital music policies. Movies? I'd hope that you'd be smart enough for that trash to bore you. Books and the Internet are quickly becoming the last sanctuaries of complex human thought and art (along with interconnected ideas, themes and subtlety, all abandoned in the world outside of the University and Internet. Proof? Read the paper or watch the TV.). Remember, the $$AAs only exist as long as they can persuade others that they still have a purpose - to distribute and record cultural content. And they do it 20 times less efficiently than the Internet.

    Sure, stupid people with poor taste will keep giving them money, but for the first time in history, the Internet has given us options. We can make our own culture. But most people can't hope to understand the profound implications this raises for institution and tradition. Any of the pioneers of human thought would be amazed at the possibilities that a truly peer-to-peer system such as the Internet makes possible. By creating and sharing our culture through it, we've made obsolete the old institutions and abolished the physical limitations imposed on us by analog distribution (watch as they clamor for a piece of the new pie). It's a testament to human adaptation that we treat it as routine.

  29. Sesac/BMI/Ascap are a joke by t0qer · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've had run ins mostly with sesac for the last year. I stream video of folks singing karaoke from a bar called 7 Bamboo here in San Jose California.

    I have several problems with giving some body blanket rights to collecting royaltees.

    1. They can use whatever broad definition of what requires a license.

    Once you give an organization the right to collect royaltees, there is no checks or balances in place to define what entitles them to a royaltee. Remember elevator music? Thanks to the licensing boards going after elevator operators, we no longer hear it. How in the world is elevator music making someone money? It's not, it's stupid.

    2. Licensing board broad collection schemes.

    I read over the sesac contract very carefully. Basically, I pay based on the number of hits my website gets in a month. What does hits have to do with the number of viewers on the video stream? Nothing, the two are completely unrelated. I could see paying based on my stream traffic, but not on the number of hits I get on the site. If they wanted to make me pay based on my ttsl reports Unfortunately me and the license boards don't see eye to eye on this one.

    3. Just plain old greed.

    The bar I work for already pays ascap/bmi/sesac public performance fees. They pay a total of $1500@year. Isn't that enough? Why do they want more for the stream? It's just stupid.

    4. Lack of disclosure from the licensing boards.

    I think licensing boards should be *required* to tell folks exactly what would make them exempt from licensing fees. Unfortunatly this is not the case, they are more interested in getting you to sign a contract (which basically gives up all your rights) instead of telling you what does and does not count as copyright.

    I found several sections of the US copyright law that gives me exemptions in the case with karaoke streaming on the net. There's several sections 110-117 which deal all with copyright exemptions. Parody, it's not the real singer or the real background music and it's free to watch. Also there is cultural exemption (We're a Japanese owned karaoke bar, karaoke is from japan) Despite me pointing these out to sesac on several occasions, they're still very insistant that I pay royaltees for the stream. /end stupid licensing rant

    Anyways, licensing boards need to operate more like a goverment agency than a glass tower of lawyers (which is exactly what they are now) Their only interest is money, and there is no limit to where they will go to collect it. They will lie, use scare tactics, and do everything short of sending hired goons to collect it.

    On top of that, lawyers are not techies. Letting a group of lawyers define the law on anything technical is a *bad* thing.

    Ok, end rant. Watch my karaoke station.

  30. Suing customers... by demon_2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Suing customers doesn't change much.
    How many cds worth would you buy over say 5 years? Now, when you get sued you might not buy any cds but, for how long will that last? By that time the RIAA got payd for that in a lump sum from the lawsuit payout.

  31. Because... by 3.2.3 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Have you ever examined systems like ASCAP? They don't get significant money to the overwhelming number of their members. It's set up to fund just a few artists and ASCAP itself.
    2. It would be prohibitively expensive just like the system of payments set up for simulcasting broadcasters. And again, nothing worth mentioning from that system goes to the artists, either.
  32. no U.S. tax on generic CD-Rs by westlake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the U.S. the surchage applies only to blank Music CD-Rs. Standalone CD-R Recorders.

  33. Re:RIAA- superfluous? by Osty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  34. Exploitation by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  35. I Have a Better Idea... by Nehi+the+Ganchark · · Score: 2, Funny

    Outsource all the lawyers to India. That way legal fees for downloading music on p2p will be the same price as a download from iTunes.

  36. News? by aero2600-5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:News? by zpok · · Score: 2, Funny

      ..."The Recording Industry Ass. Of America"...

      Was that intentional? Very funny.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    2. Re:News? by aero2600-5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would love to claim credit for that, but The Register has been calling them that for as long as I can remember.

      Either way, it fits very well.

      --
      Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
  37. I don;t know if anyone has noticed. by SetupWeasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But companies in America not only hate their employees, but they are starting to hate their customers as well.

    Remember Best Buy's Demon Customers?

    It seems if you are not acting in a company's interests at every moment, the company is out to punish you. And until we start holding corporations accountable for their actions, as a consumer AND a country, they will continue to throw tantrums when things don't go their way.

    Spare the rod, spoil the company.

  38. The Sharing License by bitspotter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm looking for intelligent comments and criticism on this scheme, as well:

    http://n8o.r30.net/a2z/drupal/node/view/153

    It does not require (though it could benefit from) a central royalty agency, and so it can be implemented by small labels and artists today. At the same time, it ends up being a tractor app for more SSL or IPSEC deployment among common Internet users.

  39. Why The EFF's VCL won't work. by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The easiest way to see why the EFF's voluntary collective license won't work comes from Fred von Lohmann himself -- for the VCL to work, almost *every* rightsholder would have to voluntarily license, and almost *every* downloader would have to voluntarily pay.

    Truthfully, now, isn't that a bit silly?

    Next, you have to think about how this system would actually track what people download, in order to divide up any money collected. Do you really want to ask for even more monitoring software added to your ISP on behalf of the govenernment / entertainment industry? (I don't)

    They claim that it would render all transfers anonymous, but even if it did (yeah, right) then there would be no way to identify cheats like bots that artificalially increase someone's popularity.

    I could go on, but I'll stop there -- the EFF VCL isn't the answer.

    IMHO, my suggestion is DRUMS.

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  40. Why?-Numbers game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The problem is that Soundscan shows a 10% increase in music sales when comparing the first quarter of 2004 to 1Q 2003."

    OK. Now here's a homework problem for you. How much of the increase can directly be attributed to illegal P2P? Hard isn't it? Now try to figure out how many computers out there have Linux installed? Hard isn't it? Same reasons.

  41. Re:You insensitive clod by ahfoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ah hah!
    Well, you see this is a very interesting point in my opinion. In the country where I live, Taiwan, half of the people have this level of DSL service and it costs about twenty three dollars a month with free local phone service included.
    Interestingly, we only have one Internet provider that is majority owned by the government. Actually there are sub-providers, but they all have to buy from the government monopoly. So where's the real problem for people in, say for instance, the US? The problem is they're being charged excessively for bandwidth that doesn't cost as much as they are being charged. Why is that? Hmm, could it be that companies like Warner and Sony actually own many ISPs and that the ISPs cooperate with the telecoms to lobby congress to create regulations that artificially keep the prices high? I'm pretty sure that these are the insensitive clods you are looking for.
    So, you see, if bandwidth wasn't being artificially limited, you would have no problem trading .shn files and all the artwork you could possibly want. You could trade hi-def concert footage as well. You could trade whatever you wanted. Discs are outdated and if the US wants to slip behind the rest of the world, that's a pity but the rest of the world is not going to slow down and wait for it to catch up.
    However, none of this really relates much to my original point which is that there is a big difference between music or the love and appreciation of high quality music and the music game or as they sometimes say, the industry. The latter is what this whole debate is about. It has jack shit to do with music.

  42. Exactly by sangdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or, for instance, let downloaders agree they won't sell your music. The big labels aren't going to distribute it for free, but P2P users will.

    If you want to stop the P2P distibution as well (or at least make it illegal), let them agree to not distribute your music at all. Since they can point out your website to their friends, they can generate more hits to your webpage.

    You can also put an ad in the ID3 tag of the mp3's you offer for download :)

  43. Re:RIAA- superfluous? by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.