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

[cdrguru]

Absolutely. The internet "sharing" of anything that can be "shared" means nobody with anything digital is going to be able to derive any money from it. This is the target that many claim is where they want things to go.

I don't think they have thought about where this ends up. I don't think the end of the road is certain, but I'll bet it means curtailed development of entertainment in digital form.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he is saying that the RIAA, a group corporations convicted of multiple federal crimes, is not the best source of lectures on ethics.

Lead by example, not threats.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

He is saying:

1) Traditionally, RIAA has stifled innovation by using dubious means, and they have always been scared of new technology, and have tried to prevent onset of technology using monopolistic and legal measures
2) RIAA isn't the right guardian for the right of musicians. One ought to see it more as a consortium of big-label music companies, and nothing more.

Re:Robin Hood

[ashmedai]

Bingo. It's not that stealing is okay if it's from a thief. It's that it's really stupid for a morally bankrupt group to complain about every individual incidence of copyright infringement when they can't even prove the act deprived them of a potential sale they say they deserve on the basis of junk science and fabricated statistics. It's that the amount of lies and slander they propigate in attempt to sway public opinion in favor of their greed-motivated witch hunt is just plain horrific. And then there's the issue of the Orwellian legislation they push through with the help of the government that we're supposed to be able to trust to protect us from such things, as if Homeland Security wasn't edging towards a police state already on its own.

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

[BCW2]

Just remind the Congresscritters that the RIAA has said some of the exact same things before. I have heard some quotes by the RIAA taken word for word from their testimony before Congress on another technology that was going to starve all artists and kill the industry. They were talking about cassette tape recorders in the early seventies!

Really hurt them, huh!

Same crap, different century.

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

[Xyrus]

I would just like to remind people that this is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, not THEFT.

Big difference.

~X~

Re:Robin Hood

[SnowZero]

Mod parent up!

Prof. Dannenburg never said stealing was ok, he simply said he's not going to help a group that refuses to do what it claims is its mission (help artists). The RIAA isn't only saying stealing is wrong, they are saying that colleges MUST help them, for the sake of all the poor artists. The professor is responding that "If you don't help artists why should I help you?".

P.S. Carnegie Mellon is already not very P2P-friendly: Computing services warns you in several places that if you violate copyright you could get in trouble with the law. There are people on campus paid (presumably by a certain industry group) to rat out other students on the network. It looks like they have all the tools they need, so why should I help them? It's not my job to police artificially low speeding limits or badly placed stop signs.

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?

Re:Robin Hood

[plague3106]

Replace "copyright infringment" with "outsourcing" and "sale" with "job," it doesn't sound like junk science and fabricated statistics anymore. The ability to measure potential is a difficult, even if 1% of the people who download a song or movie would have purchased it, it is still a large amount of money lost.

Bull. People currently employeed are laid off to be replaced by workers oversees. A lost 'sale' might never have been a sale, you can't honestly know for sure. There's a huge difference.

Replace "copyright infringment" with "outsourcing" and "sale" with "job," it doesn't sound like junk science and fabricated statistics anymore. The ability to measure potential is a difficult, even if 1% of the people who download a song or movie would have purchased it, it is still a large amount of money lost.

You mean as long as the system is currently rigged to elect a caniditate that really is the same as his oponent? There really are much fewer differences between the Ds and Rs than people would like to believe.

Re:Robin Hood

[lahvak]

It doesn't make it legal, but it does make it accepted by public. There is whole bunch of laws like this. Driving too fast is illegal, yet everybody does it, and nobody cares. Smoking pot is illegal, but lot of people do it, and nobody cares. In some places, jaywalking is illegal, but nobody cares.

Yes, it may be illegal to "steal" from RIAA, but who cares? People are fed up with RIAA, and when they claim that p2p networks will drive them out of business, most people will just say "good riddance!"

Re:Robin Hood

[Kaorimoch]

The Orwellian legislation being thrown through government annoys me to no end. Copyright should be about making our lives better and richer, balancing the needs of owners and the public and now it is all about maximising the value of these copyrighted "assets" such as Mickey Mouse and the Happy Birthday song.

The public is losing the benefit of copyright legislation as it slowly becomes more restrictive, monopolised and criminalised. The Government is failing its mission to look after the public's interests. There's no money in making it more public-friendly anyway.

Re:Robin Hood

[evoltap]

"This is the target that many claim is where they want things to go."

Totally. As a musician and a music appreciater, I would like to see things progress towards more sharing. If music was cheaper, (say 7 cents a song) and the service was comprehensive and easier than "illegal" sharing, I think it would be plenty of revenue to support the artists and the staff required to run the download/distribution system.
Of course this would require major legislation with some sort of sunset, gov-subsidized industry shutdown. Can't say I see that happening anytime soon.........

So f**k 'em. Musicians can always choose to not deal with the industry. They're digging their own grave.....while they sue and promote artists that lip-sync, the real artists and fans will find another way to enjoy music and make a living. When I see a really good live show, I gladly support the artist and buy their product.
It costs about $2 and under to print a single CD with artwork.
Why then don't CD's cost $4? Wouldn't more people throw down $4 over $16.95? Then charge about a buck an album for compressed downloads.
In the end, I think more art being propagated by the internet is a good thing for humanity.......but of course, the end of the road isn't certain.

Re:Robin Hood

[macdaddy357]

And Cary Sherman telling people to respect artists is like Jack The Ripper telling people to respect prostitutes.

Re:Robin Hood

[saberint]

haha yes its a biiger fine and u do more time for copyright infringement!

Re:Robin Hood

[kizzbizz]

In addition, many people have the false belief that everything the Government does is in the best interest of every individual, something which unfortunatley just isn't true. Sure, we could assume that the laws against marijuana are well founded, but I could give you at least 3 positive effects of of pot right off the top of my head (Hemp's use as a natural fiber in cloth and paper, the incredable nutritional value of cannibis seeds, and the pain reliving effects of THC). Just because something is deemed illegal does not automatically mean that it is "wrong".

Of course, there are those natural moral assumptions of what is wrong- you cannot really make the argument that rape and murder are acceptable. But for some laws such as speed limits (which is a multi-million dollar business for state coffiers and insurance companies alike), the criminalization of marijuana, and gay marriage legislation, the Government does NOT have your best interests at heart. That is just how things are.

I am not aruging that p2p is "right", but to portray file sharers as nothing more than common criminals says nothing of the corruption within the RIAA. Unfortunatley, lawmakers are imposing more outrageous punishments for filesharers while helping to protect the corrupt nature of the RIAA on the individual artists.

In this way, you can't label something as "wrong" just because it happens to be "illegal" without looking at the bigger picture.

Re: Robin Hood

[laughingcoyote]

So you state, that during the period during which slavery was legal, and freeing a slave without his/her owner's permission was considered theft, it was wrong for the Underground Railroad to operate, in addition to illegal? That since it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, it was wrong? That since it was illegal for the 13 colonies to rebel against English authority, that it was wrong? That since dissent in totalitarian countries is illegal, it is wrong?

Given that, how is any system but totalitarianism a workable one, if we take the premise that the law is always right?

Re:Robin Hood

[badfish99]

Ah, but it's not stealing, is it. The thief has still got all the music, even after you've taken it.

This is the first time in history that we've ever had any valuable goods that could be duplicated for free like this. That's why people are still trying to get their heads round the issues involved.

Re:Robin Hood

[Bazzalisk]

Driving too fast is illegal, yet everybody does it, and nobody cares. Not everybody does it, and some people do care. You're right that this has become "acceptable" in society due to some misconception that driving is a right rather than a privilege. Revoking a few more licenses for life would help correct people of that error - and here in the UK at least this does look like it might be beginning to happen.

Re: Robin Hood

[mkw87]

What ever happened to the days of supply and demand? Just last spring I took a college economics class and they still stressed that the american market(s) depend on supply and demand. I drew multiple useless graphs about it. He never did mention the market that the RIAA is involved in though.....maybe their graph looks a bit different. All I know is that american markets are supposed to rely on supply and demand and the RIAA is trying to find a way around this. There is a demand for music, but people don't want to pay 15-25 dollars per cd, and I can't blame them when they can get it for completely free elsewhere (of course you are most likely selling your soul to the devil to download music). If the demand is for CD's at a lower price, then they should be supplied at a lower price. That is how american economy works - well is supposed to work, *cough* damn geoge bush.

Re: Robin Hood

[3terrabyte]

The traditional cost of media is largely distribution costs (if you believe the RIAA).

Wrong. The RIAA does not say most of their cost comes from distribution. Their cost comes from "investing" in all their artists, of which only 1 in 10 are profitable.

However, don't mistake my personaly beliefs as theirs.

Re: Robin Hood

[DeathFlame]

Except that if it was ACTUALLY theft, then it would be a criminal act, and that you could go to jail for it and such.

However it's not theft, it IS copyright infringement, and it's only a civil matter, so they can only sue you for damages.

Re: Robin Hood

[Pofy]

By your argumentation, any action that doesn't result in a sell is "stealing". Hence, if the friend borrows the CD instead, he is also stealing. If instead of just collecting dust in my home since I no longer like to listen to the CD, I sell it to the friend, he is stealing too and so on.

So you end up calling something stealing that is perfectly legal. What good does that do you? What is the point in finding a similarity that might work out in some specific case and then apply that to every single case (claiming that copyright infringement is stealing)?? It is trivial to find cases were any such argumentation for claiming copyright infringement is stealing won't work. It is trivial to find examples of actions that is stealing but not copyright infringement but also cases that is copyright infringement but not in any way stealing in any way you look at it.

Actually, the whole idea of using "loosing money" to find similarities is quite stupid since copyright infringement has nothing to do with losing money. Something is not copyright infringement because there is a loss of money or income for someone. Copyright infringement (in these cases) are about creating something new, that is creating a new physical property that happens to be identical to something else. Stealing deals with changes in possession or ownership of such physical properties.

And this is an important thing to note, the differences between ownership of a copy of a work and "ownership" of the copyright to a work. The first actually deals with physical objects, ownership and stealing works out. The copyright has very little to do with this having the copyright does not imply or relate to owning the individual copies. Thus, it is perfectly possible for a copyright holder to commit the crime of stealing a copy of his own work (for example taking a CD from a shop). THAT is stealing, completely unrelated to copyright and copyright infringement.

There are also obvious differences in the consequences between stealing a CD and copying a CD. In the case of stealing, the store (for example) is the one losing out. The copyright holder doesn't get any money in any form when you are convicted. When you copy a CD instead, the shop does not in any way lose out. Instead the copyright holder is the one that can go after you and get money for the infringement.

Anyone claiming that the two cases (stealing and copyright infringement is really the same and can be called stealing) has in my opinion simply not understood the concept of copyright and its relation to actual physical copies, at all.

>And don't confuse the issue with who the seller
>is. The current contracts for music make the
>record labels the sellers.

Not the slightest idea what you talk about. For most people, a store is the seller. The music maker would be sellers to the store.

Re: Robin Hood

[hesiod]

> You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.

How many times does it need to be said? THEY NEVER HAD THAT X DOLLARS! If they never had it, it couldn't be taken from them, therefore it is not stealing. It is preventing profit, which is very different. Protestors in front of a store can convince people to not shop there. Did they then "steal" from the store by preventing the profit?

No matter how many times you put "in fact" in front of an incorrect statement, it is still incorrect.

> It is theft, maybe not of the actual media, but of the profit the seller SHOULD have been allowed to make on the item.

No one prevented them from being allowed to make money. They did not offer it at an attractive-enough price, so the person chose not to give their money to a corrupt organization (whether they knew it was corrupt or not).

> you do not have the right to steal their money.

But they have the right to steal mine through illegally-obtained and relatively arbitrary taxes?

Fuck that. Once they start playing fair, I will start playing "fair." You can complain about it being illegal, which I will not argue, but you aren't convincing anyone with those tired, rehashed, B.S. arguments. It is IP infringement, stealing is, by definition, about actual property, it does not include infringing on a company's distribution rights to an abstract concept.

Would you argue that it would be stealing if I recorded a song that sounded almost exactly like a popular one (AKA a remake) and then gave it away, because anyone who liked my remake would have liked the original. Thus, I have deprived the original distributor of the money they could have made by people buying copies of the original. Am I a filthy thief?

Re:Robin Hood

[Duck of Death]

He's not saying that downloading music using I2 is OK. His point is that the original editorial was completely one-sided and that the RIAA, rather than being an innocent victim, has been and continues to be guilty of similar behaviors.

He is accusing the pot of calling the kettle black - he's not saying that the kettle's bad behavior is okay.

DD

Re:Robin Hood

[Vraeden]

He never once says stealing is okay. He says he isn't going to do anything about it until the complaining side stops stealing first. Nothing invalid about his position. The law does not force him to do the enforcing.

Re:Robin Hood

[Illserve]

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

Actually bribing congressmen is cheaaaap. They're having a firesale on laws, everything must go!

Last time I read the reports of cash contributions to senators I was alarmed at how little money it took to buy yourself a DMCA. I think it's in the neighborhood of several million clams.

Re:Robin Hood

[stlhawkeye]

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

Robin Hood stole from the government, not from thieves.

....

Er... nevermind!

Re:Robin Hood

[stlhawkeye]

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.

Just because they are a bunch of stubborn idiots doesn't mean that their request is unreasonable. If students were using the university's photocopier to reproduce entire text books (let's pretend the use of the copier is provided free of charge by the school) and were buying one book for a class and making copies of it and handing them out, I'd expect the publisher to be furious, to demand that the University put a stop to it and enact better controls over use of their equipment/services.

That's not unreasonable. The RIAA is still a bunch of bullying idiots, and they're still never going to solve the piracy problem, it's too late, they missed the bus, and they're going to have to eventually rethink their business model.

Still, the material is theirs, they do hold an exclusive right to redistribute and reproduce the content, and the students who violate this right are breaking the law using university resources. I don't think they're asking for anything unreasonable. I'm more concerned that legitimate file sharing would be trodden upon in an attempt to comply with whatever demands the RIAA is making.

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

63% of all rebuttals are made up on the spot. 52% of all people know that.

Re:Bah

[F13]

Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. Fourfty percent of all people know that.

Full text of rebuttal....

[gardyloo]

"I'm rubber, you're glue."

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Hitler.

Re:YAIA

[ergo98]

I've never understood that rule - pointing out weaknesses gets YOU no points, it might remove his, but you won't win unless you can actually out-argue one of his points rather than just discrediting them

On the topic of discrediting, I think we should remember that Anonymous Cowards have been, historically, the perpetrators of countless GNAA recruitment campaigns, goatse stealth links, and ad hominem attacks. Anonymous Cowards have posted misogynist and anti-semitic attacks of horrifying proportions, and as a general rule are unsavoury characters.

So clearly your point has no foundation.

Re:YAIA

[j-turkey]

Shut up, Hitler.

Not flamebait. It's a play on Godwin's Law and Internet argument "rules". I thought it was pretty good.

Re:YAIA

[jevvim]

I must admit that Prof. Dannenberg actually did rather little to counter Sherman's arguments

I think the Prof. did a good job here, primarily in showing that there's a historical record of established companies either (a) using their technology to control who gets published, or (b) using their position in an attempt to prevent other companies from competing with them.

Internet2 is all about research - should that research be restricted because an organization known for strong-arm tactics is attempting to strong-arm the research institutions? What about all those independent acts out there who can't get their creative works published, and who want to use P2P to build the fan base that could get them a record deal? What about alternatively-licensed content that needs to be effectively distributed? Should we listen to an organization that has historically shown itself as an impediment to new technology?

I think the Professor did a fine job in discrediting the article's author. But, alas, it's in today's paper, which is read less (ok... of which fewer copies are sold) than the Sunday edition, where the article was published. Think the RIAA cares about the letter?

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:YAIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know this professor's position on having old tests, homework and papers from his class distributed? If he's not behind that then he can go fuck a cuisinart for all I care about his opinion.

Lacking Content

[Mathonwy]

I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anyone, but I wish this letter had had more meat in it. In particular, the final point ("I know people who haven't gotten their checks from you guys, so nyah") is a pretty weak...

The first part is ok, I just wish there were more of it. It's not like the recording industry's history doesn't have enough hypocricy to fill several articles. That would have made a better impression. "Extending musical copyrights for centuries is absurd, and clearly just a money grab" is a much better argument (imho) than "You steal from us, so it's ok if we steal back".

Re:Lacking Content

[Dun Malg]

I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anyone, but I wish this letter had had more meat in it. ...The first part is ok, I just wish there were more of it. It's not like the recording industry's history doesn't have enough hypocricy to fill several articles.

You have unrealistic expectations from that type of forum. The problem is, he wasn't writing an article, it was a letter to the editor. Letters that are article length either don't get published or get edited down to two or three short paragraphs. He did the best one could expect within those limitations.

Re:Lacking Content

[renehollan]

The problem is, he wasn't writing an article, it was a letter to the editor.

Indeed.

I used to write many letters to the editor of the Financial Post (a right-wing national financial paper in Canada - I usually argued the libertarian position). I had a good record of getting them published.

Once I got a call from their letters to the editor deportment, saying, basically, "We like your letter. But, it's too long. Can you shorten it? In the next 5 minutes?"

I responded, "Just use the first and last paragraph. It'll stand on those". Silence for a few seconds, then, "Geez, thanks! That works!!" and "clik" as the line went dead.

The point is I wrote my letter to be edited. Most papers reserve that right, to edit for brevity, typos, and grammer. The desk editor was doing me a curtesy by asking, though the cut he was wanting to make was significant (about 70% of the content, most of which was backing my opening assertion).

So, yeah, letters to the editor are often statements of opinion, with little to back them up. The ones that have their substance back up often do get published in favour of those that don't, even though the supporting arguments are omitted in the final version. That this one had several of those arguments published says something of the importance the editor(s) gave it.

Robin Hood-Rebound.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

People who live in rubber houses shouldn't either.

Re:Robin Hood-Rebound.

[tomhudson]

And people who life in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones**.

** Conditional on the thrones being heavy, and stored on the second floor of the house

... ah, someone who read Isaac Asimov's Joke Book, I see. Carp-to-carp walleting, The Caesar Corn Exchange motto - "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears", the McBeth Drycleaning Co - "Out, out damn spot!", and The Dagger Tail-light Co - "Is that a dagger I see before me".

Wow!

[ta bu shi da yu]

Mr. Sherman, you say that stealing "is not OK," and yet I have musician friends who cannot get RIAA members to pay them the royalties they are due. While you are asking universities to address your problems, please don't forget that you too can be a "powerful leader in curbing theft of copyright materials on campus." If you'll stop your members from stealing from my friends, and then study some history, maybe I can help you.

I'd love to find out who RIAA members are stealing from. That would really stop them from spouting off that the RIAA "protects" artists by allowing them to make a living!

This is quite an amusing ironical double-standard

[danalien]

...hearing 'Big thieves' (RIAA's members, the 'music maffia' - 'we' all know how the operate...) cry over (from their POV) a bunch of smaller-thevies 'stealing' from them....

*HMpf*

danalien - former filesharer, stopped 'stealing' garbage ...

Teaching their students bad values

[kfg]

I'm curious, is the RIAA aware that the universities are engaged in adult education?

KFG

News?

[Dynedain]

Wow, a 10 sentence letter to the editor...thats breaking news and a clear-cut victory for the anti-**AA crowd.

Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[MacDork]

I got my brain on hype.
Tonight'll be your night.
I got this long-assed knife,
and your neck looks just right.
My adrenaline's pumpin'.
I got my stereo bumpin'.
I'm 'bout to kill me somethin'
A pig stopped me for nuthin'!


Cop killer, better you than me.
Cop killer, f**k police brutality!
Cop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(f**k her)
Cop killer, but tonight we get even.

Yeah, it's those damned colleges that are corrupting the moral values of America's youth while the RIAA stands for all that is just and good.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[theonetruekeebler]

Body Count was a damned interesting project---Ice-T reclaiming hard rock as a black musical form. "KKK Bitch" is as badassed as it gets, BTW---or it was, until the track "Cop Killer" came up.

Frankly I'm more than a little disappointed by the decision to pull Body Count then re-release it without that one song. Chickenshit, really---shows the industry for what whores they are. So much for standing up for their artists.

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[Lester_Wallace]

The best part about this Cop Killer thing by Ice-T is that Ice-T plays a cop on some TV show. Last week I was flipping channels and saw that his character got shot in the chest. I couldn't help but start rappin' some cop killa...

Re:Cop Killer: Brought to you by the RIAA

[AoT]

I forgot about that shit. I am going to go down load it now.

I agree with the professor

[Bananatree3]

It makes sense, at least to me, that the RIAA's all-stakes vendetta against file sharers is taking things too far. While I do think that artists should have the ability to make a living off of their music, it does not at all justify the sheer amount of all out attack that the RIAA has been taking agaisnt File-sharers.

The RIAA's tactis have not done nearly as much I think to stop illegal file-sharing as LEGAL music downloads like Apple's iTunes and others have been doing. The scare tactics employeed by the RIAA only scares off some of the less-diehard file swappers, and does not deter the majority of the sharers out there. While it may seem like the number of file sharers has decreased, the majority of those that have stopped have probably moved to legal forms of getting music downloads. If the RIAA, instead of spending millions on lawyers fees to sue, spend that money on promoting legal music downloading, I have a feeling the impact would be greater

Re:I agree with the professor

[Soko]

I've always believed that the RIAA is more interested in control than sales.

The Internet is a distribution channel that they will never (hopefully) fully control. If they can't control their means of distribution, they can't provide stable financial data - which tends to conflict with what share holders want in a company.

Internet distribution can make the RIAA totally irrelevant. With the right hardware and new applications, almost anyone can make, record and distribute quality music. The RIAA is fighting for it's very existance, IMHO.

Soko

Re:I agree with the professor

[stealth.c]

Precisely.

The Internet makes them irrelevant. If the RIAA ceased to exist tomorrow, the knobs that run the radio stations, VH1, etc. would be confused for about a week, then realize the replacement already exists.

More people need to realize this. Maybe somehow, someone like Napster, Apple or Microsoft can get the typical mainstream distribution channels (radio, TV) to not think of the RIAA labels as their sole source. When that happens, well, we can watch what a free market will do. The thing the RIAA labels offer to budding artists is andvertisement and connections. If web-based distribution companies find a way to offer this too, in essence becoming labels themselves, then the RIAA is sunk.

Re:I agree with the professor

[hesiod]

> almost anyone can make, record and distribute quality music

A slight correction. They can make music with high quality sound. High quality music requires talent that most people do not have, or choose not to learn.

Not impressed.

[MetalliQaZ]

While I'm sure that the points he raises are valid, overall I'd say that was a really weak letter, and not something that deserves front page on Slashdot. Who are these "friends" exactly? How about some more modern examples of RIAA bullsh*t? The examples he gives are so far in the past that they are hardly relevent now. He needs a more developed argument and much more supporting evidence.

-d

Teaching their students naughty values

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm curious, is the RIAA aware that the universities are engaged in adult education?"

They teach porn?

Re:Teaching their students naughty values

[NanoGator]

"They teach porn?"

Ever taken a figure drawing course?

Unreadable

[alan_dershowitz]

Did anyone else find this rebuttal just rambling and boring? He didn't do a lot of rebutting, just yammering all over the map about things only tangentially related to the topic.

Re:Unreadable

[FriedTurkey]

Did anyone else find this rebuttal just rambling and boring? He didn't do a lot of rebutting, just yammering all over the map about things only tangentially related to the topic.

Hello...he is a college professor. Did you go to college? College professors never actually say anything useful.

I am not reading the rebuttal. I just picked up a syllabus and I will show up for the exams.

Re:Unreadable

[michaelhood]

Hello...he is a college professor. Did you go to college? College professors never actually say anything useful.

I choose not to argue that..
But then, why is it exactly you've chosen to attend a college where you realize you will gain nothing from your professor's teaching? Aren't you just supporting a system that (per your opinion) allows you to pay a lot of money to hear professors to say nothing useful?

Re:Unreadable

[aziraphale]

Actually, I believe it's paying a lot of money to acquire a piece of paper that tells other people that you've listened to professors saying nothing useful...

There's a subtle but important difference.

Uphill Battle

[DumbSwede]

Here is my take on why the MPAA and RIAA will fail in trying to realize all of their draconian measures. We are headed into a sea of entertainment choices, and while the MPAA and the RIAA would like to make sailing these seas a cash cow with DMCA, it seems unlikely that will succeed. The RIAA is screaming about shrinking revenues and blames piracy. Piracy is a partial answer to why RIAA revenues are not increasing at projected rates. Actually shrinking (yet) is debatable depending on whose numbers you use. But here is a better list of reasons the RIAA is no longer getting what it thinks are its just dues:

1. People have been use to getting free music for decades -- ever since the birth of radio.
2. People used to feel the money paid on records was mostly in the physical process of making records and distributing them, but now they see with 10 cent CDROMS and 1/10 of a cent per Meg of disk space that playback mediums are now virtually free.
3. A lot of people feel recorded music is all advertising. Why would you listen to an artist if you hadn't already heard the artist and why would you pay for something you've already heard?
4. In the past people bought records they heard on the radio only because they didn't have a convenient way to record just the songs they wanted and to index, label, store, and retrieve them.
5. In the past people didn't feel like chumps for plunking down $10 for and album and $15 for a CD, because there weren't millions of others are getting this stuff for free. Let me make the point clearer - even if the RIAA scares someone into not downloading music from the net, the willingness to pay full price will also be diminished because the tantalizing free stuff lies just a wire away.
6. Some portion of the potential audience feels that musicians are over compensated, immoral, prima donnas that can't actually perform outside a recording studio without 100 retakes and then special post processing to improve their marginally capable voices.
7. Some people prefer live music and think money paid for a live show is the only real compensation music artists should expect.
8. Music artists and the RIAA are seen as hypocrites hawking anti-establishment messages and then looking for special rights, powers, and protection from the establishment to maintain their empire.
9. Ever since the death of the 45-rpm single, people have felt coerced into buying all of the songs on a CD or album when all they wanted was a song or two.
10. When people buy something they like to feel they actually own it and can do what ever they want with it. You can buy or subscribe to music singles again these days, but not without some flavor of DMCA. Some more draconian than others.

So ironically it is not that some huge percentage of the population is listening to bootleg music, though they probably would if the RIAA weren't fighting this loosing rear guard action, but that the cheapness of distributing music has been uncovered and become known because bootleggers exist. That Genie is not going back in the bottle -- maybe they should change their business models instead.

Re:Uphill Battle

[largenumber]

11. In a digital medium, music is just one big number, extremely easy to reproduce, exactly as it is, because it is a number. Before digital mediums this was not possible.

12. You cannot own a fact, not in the intellectual property sense or the physical sense of the word. You cannot own a number because it is a fact.

The intellectual property proponents are in what I like to call a fortified losing position. At one point they had a business model that was based on distribution and storage and now that model no longer works because distribution and storage have become far too easy and cheap. The whole IP discussion is ancillary to their current and future financial crisis. If they don't change their business model or manage to invade every aspect of your personal life in the name of IP (which has less to do with IP and more to do with monitoring and controlling you in ways most find offensive at best), then they will not maintain their entertainment cartel.

Re:Uphill Battle

[largenumber]

That's funny ;o} You mention the word work and how artists are somehow ripped off by the p2p crowd because they aren't getting paid for their work.

Its funny because work can be classified into two broad categories: enabling services and production services.

Enabling services are those that once you've performed them don't need to be done again and possibly allow other services (enabling or production) to be performed.

Think of the work involved in calculating the gravitational constant. Once its performed it doesn't need to be done again, but it allows for other services. In fact, there are so many I won't bother to list them here.

Then we have production services. These are the kind of services that must be done over and over.

For example the fabrication of a cpu is a production service (just the actual fabrication, the design of the cpu only needs to be done once allowing for the production of many cpus).

When you talk about the recording of an artist's works you are refering to an enabling service. Once an artist is recorded it doesn't need to be done again. On the other hand, when you talk about a live performance by an artist you are refering to a production service. It is a service that must be done again and again.

So when you talk about the p2p community ripping off the people who did pay for CD's you're simply confused. It is the recording & distributing industry that is ripping off the people who paid for CD's AND the artists. They over charge for the price of recording and distributing the music while skimping on paying the artists for the performance they have done.

People pay for services performed. In the case of an enabling service, there is a certain limit to the number of times it can be performed for compensation, which in the case of an artist's recording is very low. In the case of a production service, the limit on the times it can be done for compensation is typically pretty high.

An artist should take this to heart. Unless you can demand a very high price for performing your enabling service you may be better off doing a production service.

Re:What's next... assassians?

[courseB]

assassians.... probably soon.

this will become more common in time as the corporations get bigger... its like shadowrun but they would rarely be used because marketing can create armies to do their biding.

i2p will make this all moot

[gremlins]

Just wait till everyone is using i2p. Then the RIAA can't really do anything about it.

On that note I agree with the assertion this letter raises that the RIAA and similar groups are only intrested in the law when it suits them. When it doesn't they either disregard it or spend tons of money to buy our congressmen so they can have it changed.

Re:i2p will make this all moot

[Motherfucking Shit]

Just wait till everyone is using i2p. Then the RIAA can't really do anything about it.

Sure they can. They own the lawmakers, remember? When everyone is using I2P, use of I2P in the US will be made unlawful. Then they won't even have to prove you were transferring a specific file, just that you were speaking a certain protocol.

Re:i2p will make this all moot

[gremlins]

Then they will make a polymorphic protocol that makes it hard to track. Some one will figure something out and we will all be talking about that crazy law that didn't work.

Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

It however makes for an excellent slippery slope.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Well, considering that the US allows the legal murdering of murderers (a.k.a capital punishment), one has to ask how much more slippery the slope can get...

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[penix1]

"I believe a strong definition of "murder" is an intentional, premeditated killing with malice. Thus, capital punishment is killing, not murder."

Well that's some twisted logic but I'll work within your framework...

Is capital punsihment intentional? Given that prosecutors must seek the death penalty specifically, that would be a yes...

Is it premeditated? Given that the US has considered many forms of putting people to death and have decided to rest on lethal injection (for the most part) and it is planned from the start to happen at a set time on a set date with a set group of witnesses the answer is yes...

Is it done with malice? It has been described as, "The ulitmate punishment" by Supreme Court justices. Being a punishment it definately is done with malice.

And your point above holds that it is murder! Just because it is state sanctioned murder doesn't make it any less a murder.

B.

Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet.

[penix1]

"Are you seriously trying to say that punishment is imbued with malicious intent?"

From Wikipedia...

"Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party only gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party."

When you legally put people to death it is for the express purpose of achieving retribution for a past act. In the form of retribution it is with malice.

"Are all parents malicious then when they ground their children?"

If it is done with the idea of retribution then yes.

"What part of my definition do you disagree with? Even if I simplify the definition to "intentional killing with malicious intent", you still must make a case that punishment is imbued with malice in order to definitively claim that capital punishment is murder."

You were the one that set the framework here I didn't. I am of the opinion that capital punishment is wrong mainly because of the hypocritical statement it sends..."It is wrong for you to kill someone but it is ok for US to do it!" There are only 2 reasons to "punish" people. First, to teach them not to do it again. Since you are talking about the death penalty it follows to show you are not trying to teach that offender any lesson. Second, to exact retribution in an attempt to show others the "consequences". In the case of capital punishment, this is exactly what you are doing. Hence it is done with malice.

B.

USENET

[HD Webdev]

I still don't know why people like P2P applications so much. They are begging to get busted due to them waving a 'looky here at my copyrighted files' flag publicly.

USENET is still superior: Anonymous uploading of files can be done. Downloads are usually extremely fast & won't be noticed by the RIAA or whoever else is interested. And, reviews ("virus!", "bad sample rate", "wrong file", "goatse.cx warning", etc..) of uploaded files are there to be looked at before choosing to download them.

P2P, bah. There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.

Re:USENET

[garcia]

P2P, bah. There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.

25 million reasons why... Comcast HSD subscribers. Also millions more: People who don't want to deal w/USEnet (I'm one of them).

I have never had a positive experience getting anything from USEnet other than alt.sex.stories and from what limited reading I did of it in the past month it sucks worse than ever.

USEnet for files is awful even with programs to do it for you. P2P is fast, getting faster, and has TONS more material.

Re:USENET

[yuriismaster]

There are plenty of USENET front-ends that make finding files much easier and faster to get.

I wholeheartedly agree. Although I'm kindof limited by what hasn't expired yet, its a reliable source of high-quality and fully tagged mp3's.

For the interested:

• BNR2
• NewsLeecher

Are the two that I use. They work really well, although NewsLeecher is 15-day shareware.

Re:USENET

[HD Webdev]

Also millions more: People who don't want to deal w/USEnet (I'm one of them).

EXACTLY!

That's one of the major reasons why the quality/quantity of good files is better on USENET.

People who won't bother to learn how to use USENET or download an application to do it for them get filtered out. Serious traders spend an hour or so learning how to use USENET and often keep quality sets of files on-hand so that they can post 'FILEFOO (requesting: FILEBAR)' and be assured that they will get the exact file they want in return.

OTOH, P2P is full of tons of crap that people don't even realize they are sharing because they can't be bothered to RTFM. Example: Search for NOTEPAD.EXE and then browse the users and you'll see that often you're looking at their WINDOWS directory.

Re:USENET

[HD Webdev]

How bout you shut the hell up and not tell everyone about this, thank you. People like you ruin everything for everyone.

Actually, keeping it a Big Secret will ensure its eventual demise because of RIAA or other similar organizations. The RIAA knows quite well what a serious threat USENET is and has been. They're just waiting for the 'right' time to attack. They can't do that now because it would force a direct confrontation between ISP's and the RIAA. RIAA doesn't want to do this for obvious reasons.

Already, it's often difficult to get an ISP representative to give out their news server address because they say they don't know what USENET means. Many ISPs now don't offer in-house USENET as it is.

If this trend continues, all major ISPs will drop default news server access with accounts and the RIAA wrecking ball on USENET will begin to take it's toll.

The point is?

[Erwos]

"reminding everyone how past/present behavior of the RIAA and its members is an even worse model of values..."

Two wrongs don't make a right.

-Erwos

Re:The point is?

[Quixote]

True. But his argument is more along the lines of "Physician, heal thyself".

If you walk into a police station with outstanding warrants against you, complaining of a mugging, the cops are going to catch you first before they go after the mugger.

How many times have we read about pot growers who call in cops to complain of a burglary? And guess what? The cops catch them first.

If the RIAA is complaining of a crime, they must make sure that they themselves are innocent of such.

Need More articles like This

[irefay]

In the fight against the **AA's one or two articles will not do a whole lot when the **AA's are in the spotlight all the time "informing" the public about the evils of user controlled information. If there is a consitent outcry from regular people that are not being sued by the **AA's then mabey we would get somewere. Im not advocating the theft of software, however the **AA's are way out of line.

Profit model

[Anonymous Coward]

My buddy said the music industry needs to update their profit model.

I told him they had.

I have vowed never to purchase a CD new again. Exercise my right as a capitalist and vote with my dollar.

Re:How is this guy a professor??

[thedustbustr]

You read geek news, and have never heard of CMU? Climb back under your rock.

Exactly what the RIAA companies stole from us

[Simonetta]

The RIAA companies stole the public domain. They bribed the politicians to pass laws that indefinitely extend the copyright period on all published materials since the first third of the 20th century.
Under the legal principal that creates the authority of copyright protection, artistic materials must become part of the public domain after a set period of time. Bribing politicians to continously extend this period on materials that have reached the limit of their copyright is stealing from the public. It's like agreeing to pay a certain amount for an item only to find that the seller has doubled the price on the day that last payment is due... extending the number of payments that you have to make for another fifty years into the future.

And they haven't done this just once; they have done it repeatedly. Which establishes a pattern of confirmed criminal behavior in a court of law. And confirmed criminals don't get to decide what the laws are going to be for everyone else.

No civilized people or government should stand for this.

When we copy and freely distribute, we are reclaiming what has been stolen from us already. Reclaiming it from the people who have committed the biggest crime in artistic history; the theft of the public domain.

It must be pointed out over and over again:
The RIAA has no legal, moral, or ethical authority to call anyone criminals.

Plain and simple in any culture, at any time.

Re:sick of the RIAA stories

[Anonymous Coward]

So is downloading music from "Sherman" Networks illegal!

Speaking of hypocrisy....

[mblase]

Music artists and the RIAA are seen as hypocrites hawking anti-establishment messages and then looking for special rights, powers, and protection from the establishment to maintain their empire.

I never realized how fundamental this is to the RIAA's "problems" of the day. On one hand, they actively record, promote and profit from gangsta rap which doesn't just talk about killing policemen and living the "bling-bling" life, it's practically propaganda for it.

And then they expect us to listen when they tell us not to steal copies of music? That's like Merimac Caverns at midnight calling the kettle black.

Yep, those RIAA butthead will sell you a

[Senor_Programmer]

10cent bit of plastic for $15 and when it degrades to uselessness and you grab a copy off the net try to put your ass in jail.

To paraphrase NWA, 'Fuck the RIAA'

Su Senor Programmer

What's being pirated?

[cution]

Sharing copyrighted music isn't theft; it's copyright infringement.

Who's stealing from the artists? Here's one:

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a fellow who did a whole bunch of recording for Dorian Recordings, an audiophile label.

He never received any royalties. At first he just figured his recordings weren't selling (that's what they told him--how should he know any different--they do all the bookkeeping and tracking of sales!). Later he found out his recordings were indeed selling like hotcakes and he should have been receiving substantial royalty payments every quarter.

Despite repeated promises from Dorian to get the situation resolved "real soon now", he never did receive a nickel, and it turns out that (according to him) just not paying royalties at all was essentially Dorian's policy. While all their big name recording artists (in the classical music world) were wondering where their royalty checks were, the company principals were busy building & buying million dollar homes in various exotic locations around the world . . .

According to my friend, this sort of treatment is more or less the norm in the recording industry. They give you sales records that you strongly suspect are doctored or just plain wrong (but how do you prove it?), pay you royalties 1/10 or 1/4 what you have good reason to believe you should be getting (again, how do you prove it?), pay you occasionally instead of quarterly (per the contracdt), or just "forget" to pay you altogether until you pester them repeatedly, then pay some small amount to keep you quiet.

He says that as near as he can tell, Dorian really didn't know how much they owed people. But of course there is a BIG reward to them for being so incompetent . . . if they were organized and competent they would have to fork over the royalties. But with "gosh, we're so disorganized around here!" and a stupid grin, it all works out for the best . . . for them.

See Dorian's web site and some articles about their bankruptcy: 1 2 3.

Incidentally, the same friend says that music royalties are indeed his largest single source of income. But--royalties from sheet music, music books, and music-related books, NOT recordings.

Or to sum it up...

[Laebshade]

Pot, meet kettle.

Get it right

[Ferment]

It's the estate tax - not the death tax.

Your ass was fired - you were not right sized.

And it's copyright infringement, not theft .

theft / infringement

[potpie]

About the use of these terms:

The RIAA uses the word "theft" for its immoral stigma (something "infringement" lacks), while at the same time making cases against people for "infringement" because of the economic benefits to gain from winning such a case. I'f I were sued by the RIAA for "infringement," I'd call them out on it, point to articles where they call it "theft," and demand it be treated thus.

My coworker's kids do this....

[HockeyPuck]

So my coworker tells me of his kid at college, that the university has a internet2 connection. He tells stories of pulling down whole movies in 10minutes.

My BS to this is... these are public universities funded with my TAX DOLLARS. While I was in school, you could get suspended and possibly expelled for abusing the computing systems (downloading pr0n, running a MUDD).

I'm sorry but how does downloading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on DVD constitute the correct use of a universities network let alone internet2?

So if you look at what the internet2 is supposed to be http://www.internet2.edu/about/ you'll see such reasons for the internet2 as:
* Create a leading edge network capability for the national research community
* Enable revolutionary Internet applications
* Ensure the rapid transfer of new network services and applications to the broader Internet community.

Where does "Trade Maroon5 CDs" fit under this? Sounds like they (the universities and the leadership of the internet2 group) should be cracking down on these guys.

-

Re:if that's the best the anti-RIAA

[nc_yori]

Heh, way to miss the point. Regardless of what you may think of Louis Armstring's music, the issue is that the RIAA is responsible for infringing on the creative process of many artists who would otherwise be well recieved by the consumer public. Continuing in this vein, the RIAA's assertion that they are a champion of manufacturer/consumer morality is...how would one put it...bullshit.

Internet2 for universities only

[SKPhoton]

I'm at one of the schools with people being sued for sharing music on Internet2 and I know 2 of the people personally.

What is the RIAA doing on that network in the first place? It's meant for university networks only. Copyright issues aside, they're not allowed on that network in the first place.

Re:usenet is better

[Professor_UNIX]

Usenet is better. No, it's not secure, encrypted, etc. like I2P, but it doesn't have to be; it's legal.

If it's the only method of distributing copyrighted works, do you really think it will remain unscathed? They're just going after the easy targets now, but it'd be trivial to start targetting the major Usenet servers that hold copyrighted binaries.

Courtney Love...

[AyeRoxor!]

Surprised this hasn't already been posted:

Courtney Love Does the Math

Fantastic article about how RIAA appears to the Artistry

(Link to GCache to avoid slashdotting)

Re:Courtney Love...

[puke76]

Wish I had some mod points.

When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.

The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.

Steve Albini's The Problem with Music is another great one.

More about this..

[zorander]

Dannenberg, while an idealogue, is a pretty smart guy. I just completed the course he mentioned in the letter, and while the discussion he inspires among students can be biased on the borderline of predatory, he's remarkably adept at inspiring this sort of discussion without leaving the realm of fact. Though I appreciate that, I don't generally appreciate the blood-frenzy that seems to envelop the more extreme liberals in the class whenever he brings these sorts of topics up.

He has a tendency to stick some slides into the middle of his lecture that typically draw attention to some (invariably) republican inconsistency. He'd then encourage a five to ten minute discussion on the topic which spiralled progressively from merely anti-republican to borderline socialist, then finish his lecture on digital signal processing or whatever.

The point he misses is that government intervention has also helped us to get into this mess. The RIAA and MPAA and their stranglehold on media were, in large part, caused by legislation that supported that control (most recently, the DMCA). I don't think we can trust the same government which brought this to be to do something about it. It's just not in the cards.

I typically support a minimal government intervention in business, since congress is pretty much owned by business--the companies' buddies in congress will not allow a law to do any thing that hurts the bottom line for them. This pretty much guarantees that any changed to the DMCA will have a minimum positive effect for the consumer alongside a massive media impact. The spiral of lies continues.

Perhaps the government should be as separate from the concerns of business as it is the church (W aside). After all, though the government has massive powers to help business, business strives to enslave as much as the sad mixture of the Roman Catholic church and the Roman givernment ever did. While the United States can and should make a healthy environment for business, and help protect the United States economy from foreign interests (just as we'd protect a church here from a rival religious faction overseas who intended to harm them), it shouldn't be used by big business to enslave the people. By drawing a line in the sand that grows both ways, the representation of the people can only increase, and most of us would agree that this is a good thing.

Solution for the "Problem"

[KwKSilver]

I have a solution for the RIAA and MPAA that will completely solve their problem with "digital piracy." It is completely within their power, won't require courts or laws. But they won't like it. Quit producing content in digital formats. Simple. Then stuff like CDs and DVDs can be put to work on something useful, like storage and transfer of worthwhile data instead of alleged "entertainment" from Hollywood & recording studios.

Cary Sherman issues the industry's death cry...

[ph4s3]

... And through consistent education programs, they can continually remind users of the value of copyrighted works...

Is it just me, or is the death cry of a middleman always a "reminder" of how important they are to the process of uniting sellers (creators) and buyers (us)? It strikes me as interesting that one must be reminded of the value of something through "education programs," when, if those products had actual value, the buyer would know it inherently.

You know what pisses me off? That I *do* find value in music and enjoy it very much and yet I can't get a non-protected err, non-"enhanced", CD from a particular artist that will play in my damned car's CD player ('99 honda accord, stock system so it is definitely not unique). Here I am, willing to part with $15 for a physical disc with liner notes, cover art, lyrics, and some minor biographical info and I'm not able to find one that I can actually use in the one place I want to use it. I don't have anything against iTunes, but if I buy an album, I want the physical object for my library. It seems like the musicians' fans ARE the market and the RIAA has missed the boat by focusing on illegal activity instead of what the market actually is. Which goes to my point. What happens when an entire industry has lost sight of the market? They try to remind the public of their supposed value and then someone or something arises to serve the real needs of the new market to the detriment of the previous (most likely) monopoly.

R.I.P. Recording Industry Ass. of America

RIAA History Lesson

[rtblues]

THE RIAA VERSUS THE PEOPLE WHO BUY MUSIC AND MOVIES "New developments have made piracy easy and delightful. The Recording Industry Association of America is up in arms and up in the air over these developments. They have tried, unsuccessfully, to introduce legislation prohibiting this 'unauthorized re-recording'. How ironic this is. These are the same record companies that acquiesced years ago in allowing radio stations to play their records without fees despite the inscription "not licensed for radio broadcast - for home use in phonographs" on the labels. The record companies shafted live music then and are now being hoisted by their own petard." - Charles Suber - From his regular column in Downbeat Magazine, "The First Chorus" - February 18, 1960 Yes, 1960. As most people know, the RIAA is currently staging a battle over piracy that's going all the way to the Supreme Court. What most people probably don't know is that the RIAA has been singing this same song since the advent of the radio, the tape recorder, the video tape recorder, CD-ROM burner, DVD-ROM burner, and now, especially, Peer-to-Peer software clients, or file-sharing. So, according to the RIAA, the radio was going to kill the sale of LPs. Then, when it didn't, they were certain that the tape recorder would. Now people would simply record from another old nemesis of theirs, the radio. When that didn't happen, they waited a while and then really freaked out when the video recorder came along. This was going to kill movie theaters and television. When that didn't happen, it wasn't long before the RIAA was crying about CD burners destroying the sales of CDs. When this didn't happen, they waited and are now really upset about another new development, file sharing, which will surely kill the both the music and film businesses. After all of these years one would think that these folks might finally get it right. You see, the fools missed out again. In the infancy of file sharing, the RIAA and the record and film companies should have seen what was coming and gotten ready with a viable, affordable and fair offer to consumers, offering them exactly what they wanted and what they were going to soon get for free. Incredibly, the RIAA missed the boat again. A really big boat too. Instead they are back to the same strategy they so unsuccessfully employed in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, which is to complain, threaten, harass and decide that your friend can't let his friend borrow some music or video that he has. Now they want the government to tell us that our friend can't borrow or music or films. Ironically, CD sales reached new levels in 2004 and leading the pack of buyers were those that routinely download music from the Internet. It has been statistically proven that people who download music buy more CDs than those that don't. Even Apple saw this one coming, and has gotten on the boat, sort of, considering the file format they are offering is not MP3, WAV, but in their own proprietary format, something they have a long history of doing. Then there's the new Napster. If you discontinue the service, meaning you stop paying them, your files that you downloaded and paid them a monthly fee for doing so, suddenly become unplayable. What are these people thinking? Doesn't the RIAA realize that it is precisely this community of people, the ones that they want to litigate, that are the same people that are leading the way and setting future trends for the industry? Downloading music and films is obviously a very preferred method of obtaining these mediums, so why didn't the RIAA see this coming, like the rest of the world did, and get involved in it early? The answer is arrogance and the audacity to put themselves and their profits above the artists who create it and the people who buy it. "The record companies shafted live music then and are now being hoisted by their own petard." - Charles Suber - 1960 - Downbeat Magazine.

Re:Robin Hood-Apples verses Apple Juice.

[unclethursday]

While you are right that a digital copy is exact from the source, the argument is something the RIAA has been putting forth, even before there was an official RIAA.

When radio was introduced, they fought long and hard, and they weren't the RIAA yet, to make sure music never got played on it under the argument "people will just listen to their favorite songs on the radio! We'll never sell another record again!"

Instead, the radio made them more money than they could have imagined.

When recordable cassette tapes were released, they again fought long and hard to try and make them illegal, because "people will just record their favorite songs off of the radio (which we once said was evil, but never-mind our old argument)! We'll never sell another album again!"

Again, same issue, nothing bad happened to them.

Now it's file sharing will make people never buy albums again! Odd, there's still a LOT of albums being sold, all over the world, and for the longest time they couldn't "prove" any damage because they were breaking all sorts of sales records and forecasts... until they finally raised the forecasts up so high, in the middle of an economic recession, that there was no way they would ever reach those numbers. They artificially made "lost sales" by saying how they didn't meet predictions, and that was only done by raising forecasts beyond any reasonable number.

And the RIAA has only themselves to blame, really. They turned down the idea of digital distribution in the first place, figuring no one would go for it. Then the file sharing programs hit, most notably Napster; then they gave Napster world attention by suing Napster and making the suit public on news broadcasts and such. Had there been no suit or at least no publicity on the suit, millions upon millions of people who now use file sharing programs might never have even known they existed. Joe Average Internet User certainly wouldn't have known about Napster, Kazaa, etc. without that world-wide attention the RIAA gave to file sharing programs.

And, in a bit of a blast of my own personal taste against the RIAA, it also doesn't help that 99.9999999999% of the music their labels put out is absolute shit, either. Certainly the true lost sales couldn't have happened because every new band they put forth is a "me too!" band, all sounding alike and all sucking just as equally, right?

The RIAA made their bed, by their own mistakes, now they can lie in it while I support the non-RIAA artists I enjoy by legally buying my music off of iTunes (when that has what I want) or buying their CDs at smaller stores that cater to my tastes.

I agree with the professor-TechnoTalent.

[Anonymous Coward]

"With the right hardware and new applications, almost anyone can make, record and distribute quality music."

With the right hardware, Visual Basic, and MSCE certification anyone can be a programmer distributing quality programs.

Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark.

[NixLuver]

Simply because someone points out that assuming all laws are right leads to some unpalatable conclusions, it doesn't necessarily follow that he or she is suggesting that we should assume all laws are wrong. I think a good example was given where widely recognized human rights violations are legal but wrong. I think the point was simply think.

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.

This reminds me of the story of Bill Nelson

[pyrator]

To quote

The Story of Be Bop Deluxe's Bill Nelson and How His Record Label Ripped Him Off
Some Day, Artists Will Unite and Put a Stop to This Nonsense
For many years, I've been trying to discover why I have never received any royalties from EMI records for the sales of my Be Bop Deluxe recordings. I've had neither money nor accounting from them since the 'seventies, despite constant re-issues of the product on both vinyl and CD. In the 1980's, when my business affairs were managed by Mark Rye, (expletive deleted,) I attempted to get to the bottom of my non-existent EMI royalty payments. Rye, who was himself an ex-EMI employee, supposedly checked with EMI on my behalf and came back with the answer that the Be Bop Deluxe albums had not yet recouped the advances paid by EMI to the band during the band's career in the 1970's and therefore no royalties were due. Fair enough, I thought. They're bound to recoup before too long and then, perhaps, I'll be paid something.
Time passed and any further enquiries made by me were simply brushed aside with the "not yet recouped" answer. Eventually, I parted company with the troublesome Mr. Rye, finding myself severely financially 'distressed', a situation which had contributed to the rapid deterioration of my marriage and also damaged my health. To put it simply, I ended up in 'a bit of a state.' I was generously helped by a caring friend, David Sylvian who suggested that his own management, Opium, would be prepared to look after my affairs. I had a meeting with David and Richard Chadwick, (David's manager), and Richard eventually became my new manager. Amongst several problems hanging over me at that time was the ongoing non-payment/non-accounting from EMI in connection with Be Bop Deluxe royalties. (And Red Noise too, for that matter.) Richard eventually made enquiries and came back with a similar answer, that the records hadn't recouped yet. Meanwhile, the Be Bop Deluxe catalogue was being regularly re-issued by EMI without any accounting being provided to myself.
A few years later, EMI decided that they would like to make a double 'best of' CD compilation available and contacted a friend of mine, Kevin Cann, whom they employed to oversee the design and general direction of the project. Naturally, Kevin then contacted me to get my input. I explained that I was wary of the whole thing because I was not receiving any royalties for Be Bop Deluxe product. Kevin said that he would enquire at EMI on my behalf as he had a good relationship with one of the staff there. Eventually, Kevin came back to me with the news that, apparently, the records were still unrecouped BUT, the proposed double album 'best of' compilation would tip the balance in my favour and then I would begin to see some royalty payments. In view of this, I gave the project my blessing and liased with Kevin on the development of the package which became known as 'The Air Age Anthology.' This double album duly appeared in the shops but any accounting from EMI was still not forthcoming, nor were there any royalty payments.
Sometime later, a Harvest Records box set was proposed by EMI to document the history of that label, for which many bands, including Be Bop Deluxe, had recorded in the past. EMI wanted to include some Be Bop Deluxe recordings as part of the package. They even went as far as asking me to contribute a written piece for the book that they proposed should accompany the boxed set of albums. The cover of the box featured an especially commissioned painting of many of the musicians and artists featured on the collection of recordings, myself included. I thought that this release would further assist the recouping of royalties and so I agreed to contribute a written essay on my involvement with Harvest and EMI.
Meanwhile, I had been regularly complaining to Richard about the lack of accounting from EMI and he eventually contacted a firm of music business lawyers to look into the matter. Over a period of two years, a very strange story emerge

Re:Robin Hood-Appeal to Popularity.

[lahvak]

Depends on what you mean by "work".

As I wrote, "everyone does it" does not make anything legal, so it will not get you off the hook with the law.

But it does work in the sense that nobody will call the cops when they see you, nobody will try to apprehend you, nobody will go out of their way to provide information about you to cops.

For example: if you go and mug somebody on a street, most people around will yell and call the cops, some may try to catch you, and when the cops arrive, everybody will be teling them things like "he was wearing a pink shirt with green polka dots and bright yellow tie...", and "he ran that way..."

When you smoke pot on the street, or jaywalk, nobody will give a hoot.

Re:CMU is *totally* mp3-unfriendly!

[REggert]

That's because Computing Services routinely checks public file shares for copyrighted materials. If they find you have copyrighted movies or music in a shared folder that is not password protected or has an easily guessable password (e.g., the machine name or the folder name), they ban your computer(s) from the network for no less than one year. I know someone that this happened to, and it sure sucked for him not to be able to access email or the Internet from his room.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you from setting up a password-protected share and telling all your friends what the password is.

Then again, it's been almost two years since I graduated, so the policy might have changed since then.