CMU Professor's Rebuttal Against RIAA Propaganda

jsc writes "On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an article by Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, stating that university students are hijacking Internet2 to pirate copyrighted works, and schools who don't actively combat file-sharing are teaching their students bad values like "acceptance of theft". The Post-Gazette didn't let Sherman get away with it, though... Today they published a letter to the paper from Roger Dannenberg, a professor of Computer Science and Music at Carnegie Mellon University, reminding everyone how past/present behavior of the RIAA and its members is an even worse model of values..."

Comments

Robin Hood

[fembots]

Is he saying stealing from thieves (or unethical businesses) is not so bad?

Re:Robin Hood

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Re:Robin Hood

[Tim5309]

I agree that this does seem like the standard "to steal from a thief is no crime" fallacy"

If you'll stop your members from stealing from my friends, and then study some history, maybe I can help you.

The professor's arguments are valid in that the recording industry has commited sins of its own against creativity, but to say that stealing music over I2 is therefore ok simply does not follow.

Re:Robin Hood

[Catamaran]

I agree that this does seem like the standard "to steal from a thief is no crime" fallacy"

You can call it a fallacy, and from a legal pov you are right, but I think the vast majority would consider it a lesser crime than stealing from a non-thief.

Re:Robin Hood

[MrBigInThePants]

What you say is true, however the RIAA are pretending to take the moral high ground here. Most of their arguments center on protecting artist's rights and being able to foster creativity.

While the theft is certainly illegal, and nobody I have read about says it is, the RIAA's position is exceptionally disingenuous for the reasons mentioned.
They argue that law and government should protect them with MORE (very important point) legislation and they have got much of it already. (DMCA) They argue that they should be able to breech people's privacy, destroy whole internet technologies and dictate to the electronics industry what they can and cannot produce.

They argue this because they pretend to defend the artist rights and musical freedom as they have always done. This is obviously wrong.

The question is not nearly as simple as you have made it out to be. It is not a question of "enforcement of current law", but far more insidious.

Having said all that, a great comment on mp3 theft:
"Stealing music is like taking candy from a...large, fat rich person."

Re:Robin Hood

[DecayCell]

No, he's merely saying that until the RIAA starts sticking to its standards, they're not going to get any help from him on his campus.
Fair enough, I believe.

Re:Robin Hood

[kizzbizz]

Is he saying stealing from thieves (or unethical businesses) is not so bad?

Not quite. He is merely saying that if the RIAA want's to enlist the aid of colleges to combat piracy (Which is CLEARLY the intent of the RIAA's original letter), they need to clean up their act first.

Speficially, the Professors closing coment may sound like he is trying to argue that stealing from the "bad guy" is acceptable, this is a false assumption. He is merely stating that if they want HIS help, they should start holding up their end of the bargin when it comes to the recording artists, nothing more.

Re: Robin Hood

[Alwin Henseler]

I don't think the end of the road is certain, but I'll bet it means curtailed development of entertainment in digital form.

Sure, the end of the road is pretty certain, and goes something like this:

• If content is digital, it can be copied easily.
• If it can be copied, it will be copied.
• If people want a copy, they can get a copy (and not pay, if they don't feel like it).
• The content producer can make money by selling physical media (with the content), licensing, online sales, whatever. If it's made cheaper, more media/licenses will be bought, but less profit per sale. If more expensive, more profit per sale, but smaller numbers sold. Optimum somewhere in between.
• DRM (+ lawyers) ultimately change nothing of the above, only serve to push the numbers a bit in one direction or another. Oh yeah, and
• DRM and lawyers add an additional cost for everybody.

So musicians will continue to make music, people will keep listening to whatever they like (and spend money on that, when they feel like it), some industry folks will keep trying to squeeze money from all this, DRM will continue to be broken, and some lawyers will receive fat paychecks. The most succesful businesses will be those that adapt to new circumstances.

And "stealing" only applies to physical items, not when dealing with all-digital content. Use "copyright infringment", "illegal copying" or "unauthorized distribution" instead. You don't 'own' an image, you may own some rights to decide who is allowed to copy that image, and under what conditions. These rights may vary from country to country, and aren't absolute either (see: fair use).

Oh and BTW: "illegal" is not the same as "wrong".

Re:Robin Hood

[TheGratefulNet]

parent: good summary, short and sweet.

two things: moral high ground (riaa/mpaa are good guys; your college students are being bad, please stop them) and also the fact that colleged (and the legal system) should NOT be used to help protect one business' outdated sales model.

confusing morality with their profit stream IS the problem. please help to separate the two.

its fine to complain that your business is losing money. the buggywhip companies went thru that - and so will you, riaa/mpaa. could I suggest getting a NEW business model? laying off some of your staff? changing your price and distribution models?

its quite another thing to act all high and holy try to convince us that you are standing for Truth and The American Way. you're not. you're simply a business like all the rest - a business that is in dire need of a major revision.

if you want to complain about lost profits, STOP BRIBING CONGRESS AND LAWMAKERS! there, that'll save you more money than yelling at pimple-faced teenagers.

Re: Robin Hood

[NixLuver]

Hear, Hear!

The current music industry is a buggywhip plant asking the federal courts to pass laws making it illegal for Ford to sell Mustangs without buggywhips.

The traditional cost of media is largely distribution costs (if you believe the RIAA). The cost of distribution in electronic format is largely and essentially nil (I know the cost of bandwidth; but I could distribute 4000 copies of a 3 MB song per month for $16.95, or 4 tenths of a cent per copy). The largest costs associated with doing business in the digital format is covering all of the agreements with the traditional distribution services so that they can keep making and selling buggywhips regardless of their objective usefulness and value. As you say, the company that will out is the one that adjusts to the market and provides 1) a simple, pain-free process of acquisition, and 2) a cost that is low enough that copyright infringement is more trouble than it's worth. Who is going to go through the trouble of ripping and distributing songs that can be downloaded for, say, 25 cents?

YAIA

[pdbogen]

(Yet Another Internet Argument)
While I am quite pleased to see authority figures (even if they are just university professors) standing up to the RIAA, I must admit that Prof. Dannenberg actually did rather little to counter Sherman's arguments; while his points are good and valid, they do, unfortunately, follow one of the cardinal rules of internet arguing: Never argue the opponents points, only point out his weaknesses.

Re:YAIA

[Aaron England]

Never argue the opponents points, only point out his weaknesses.

You mean, kind of like what you just did with Prof. Dannenberg's argument?

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[senatorpjt]

Do we gain a better system by assuming the laws are always wrong?

No, but we most certainly DO gain a better system by assuming the laws are not always right.