Recordable Media a Bigger Threat Than Filesharing?

Matilda the Hun writes "The Register is reporting on the RIAA claims that recordable media is more of a source of piracy than P2P networks. From the article: 'The RIAA's chief executive, Mitch Bainwol, last week said music fans acquire almost twice as many songs from illegally duplicated CDs as from unauthorized downloads, Associated Press reports. According to Bainwol, in turn citing figures from market watcher NPD, 29 per cent of the recorded music obtained by listeners last year came from content copied onto recordable media. Only 16 per cent came from illegal downloads.'"

Comments

RIAA should address the cause

[bigwavejas]

It seems to me like the RIAA is stabbing blindly in the dark. They constantly shift their attention from one medium (for pirating) to another. Instead of focusing on the symptoms they should direct their attention to the cause. I know I'd buy more music (cd, mp3 or ?) if it was reasonably priced. $1 dollar/mp3 and $12.99 or more for a CD?? I'm sure they have some justification for the pricing, but... obviously something's amiss. I'm not advocating pirating music, but I do think until a happy "middle-ground" is found, this problem will not go away.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[garcia]

It seems to me like the RIAA is stabbing blindly in the dark. They constantly shift their attention from one medium (for pirating) to another.

They aren't stabbing in the dark at all. These have been slow and calculated moves! They have been planning on attacking the P2P networks, getting people to switch to legally downloaded media formats (which basically eliminate distribution costs as the RIAA doesn't even pay for it), and now they want to end recordable media!

According to Bainwol, in turn citing figures from market watcher NPD, 29 per cent of the recorded music obtained by listeners last year came from content copied onto recordable media. Only 16 per cent came from illegal downloads.

So, now that they believe that they have lessened the impact of downloaded music by finally "opening" up to the desire of the market and selling their wares, they have decided to turn their FUD campaign towards recordable media.

Yes, we should all bend over backwards to the wishes, whines, and desires of a small group of "individuals" that are just trying to protect their financial interests, right? Why should we have any fair-use rights? That doesn't help the RIAA's bottom line does it... We need to be re-educated into believing that fair-use doesn't exist. If you want to play your purchased music on your portable player *and* use a CD you have to buy it twice! Once for the MP3 player and once for the CD player.

DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA. It is only increasing their finances which are used to back legislation and smear campaigns to further erode fair-use rights.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[goldspider]

No middle ground will be realized until both sides of this issue grow the hell up.

The RIAA uses unprecidented strongarm tactics to essentially preserve their outdated business model in law. They charge very high prices for CDs, restrict their usage, and then wonder why their customers aren't happy. Grow up.

On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law. I also hear that music sucks these days, and it's not worth buying. Yet the same people fill their hard drives with this "crap". That's hypocritical. Grow up.

So where's the middle ground? One side wants too much money, and the other side doesn't want to pay anything. Good luck with that!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Overzeetop]

Yes, we should all bend over backwards to the wishes, whines, and desires of a small group...

Actually, I believe the RIAA standard line is that you just bend over.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd buy more music if they'd simply produce more music I atually WANT to listen to.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[LuciferBlack]

If they really want to know the cause, it IS related to their overpricing. Their overpricing extends from them ripping off artists and giving it to the suits in the companies. Then the artists want their fair share and so the labels jack the price up ("one for artists and TWO more for us..."). On a side note...where the hell do they come up with these statistics? "hey...i burned x amount of cd's...aaaand i downloaded this list of songs this month. i hope this helps your lawsuits out. ttyl!"

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Travelsonic]

On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.

As much as I like finding the middle ground, it's shit like this - mis understanding the argument - that makes it harder.

If you actually read when the "coypright infringement isn't theft" arguemnt was presented, it was because the crime was factually mis-named, not because they think that makes the crime ok. Most of the time that is, even going to the point of disclaiming that that doesn't change how illegal it is, but instead how the argument of one concept as something else when it is either factually wrong, or a matter of disagreed opinions.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[MindStalker]

Actually there are many people living the respectable middle ground. I havn't bought a RIAA CD in years. But I havn't pirated anything in years either. I've bought a few itunes songs, and downloaded many indie music that is freely available. In turn a few of these freely available legal downloads have turned into purchases. There are many like me, and the RIAA will probably never wake up to us sadly, because there has been indie music for decades and they havn't paid attention. Why should they start now.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[EvilNTUser]

"Instead of focusing on the symptoms they should direct their attention to the cause"

I would go even further and say it's the exact same symptom. This statistic doesn't prove anything about the habits of pirates, it just proves that the general population is hopelessly behind on the technology curve.

We now have:
-a delivery method that wastes virtually no natural resources
-3,5" hard drives that won't even notice a person's whole collection
-portable music players that store weeks of rewritable content in a matchbox

And yet people continue using Compact Discs. Plastic abominations that need to be manufactured (pollution), transported (pollution), and stored (insane waste of space).

It makes me sick. There's no problem a CD can solve better than the abstraction that is called a "file" can. (Want to take your music to a friend's party? Amplifiers have this thing called a line in, use your player, damnit. Your car doesn't support it? It's cheaper to get a more modern radio than it is to continue buying plastic discs forever.)

The CD is still popular because people are too lazy to learn something new. It pains me to notice how easily we could reduce our pollution levels without sacrificing any quality of life if people would just spend a bit more time thinking. I almost don't care if the RIAA has its way with them.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[happyemoticon]

Sorry for the plug, but I just finished a delightful series of books by Jasper Fforde. In the third book, The Well of Lost Plots, there is a conspiracy to change the format of books so that only three people can read a given printed copy (by a mechanism too laborious and tangential to explain). This sounded absurd to me until I read some of the DRM conspiracy theories, and it seems that Mr. Fforde has been reading them too.

Now, if you give somebody your CD, that's legal (for now, they want to change this of course). If you give them some MP3's, that's illegal copyright infringement. Now, why is it that when you loan somebody a book, it is legal? If you didn't have the right to let a friend borrow your copy of a given book, you'd be up in arms. Why should music be any different?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

"I know I'd buy more music (cd, mp3 or ?) if it was reasonably priced. $1 dollar/mp3 and $12.99 or more for a CD?? I'm sure they have some justification for the pricing, but... obviously something's amiss."

Amazingly enough, at $12.99 per CD, record companies typically net significantly less than 20% at the end of the year. If you were to plot the net margins of all the companies from which you buy goods and services, CDs would be on the far left of the graph. Choosing to pay or not pay for CDs is one thing, but it's not accurate to state that CD prices are "unreasonable" if one also happily buys food at the supermarket, clothing at the mall, PCs (including parts and accessories), and countless other items from industries that typically enjoy net margins well in excess on what the record industry relies on.

The "but I only pay $0.25 for CD-Rs, so $13 for a CD is an outrage! Bok bok bok!" kids are missing the deadly difference between gross margin and net margin. The $13 you pay for a CD covers all the operating costs (salary, overhead including shrinkage, advertising) of the retailer, as well as the distributor (5% right there, if disty margins are the same in the record industry as they are in the computer peripheral business), and must cover the cost of shipping, returns (an educated guess is that it's about 10% in the record industry), price protections (probably another 10%), co-op advertising (another 5% - 10%), the salary of everybody at the record company and studio who worked on it in some way, royalties for the composers and songwriters, and of course the COGS, which are about 25% of the sell-in price to disti. This is why even at low-overhead indy record labels, a CD must sell about 10K pieces before it breaks even (that number is said to be 100K for the big RIAA companies).

In short, simple bromides like "CD prices should be more reasonably priced" won't cut it. I've no doubt that you and others would like them to be cheaper (I wish lots of things were cheaper) but a sub-20 point net margin is certainly reasonable in our economy.

As for online music sales... Apple has sold 50 million tracks, and the online music industry is growing logarithmically. It may be hard to convince them that their product is not "reasonably priced." The biggest mistake we can make is thinking the enemy is stupid. You can bet that Apple and the record companies have done the requisite surveys and research on elasticity and demand to know that $1.00 is the right price to charge, and that charging $0.90 or $0.80 will not result in higher net revenues. I know I sure wouldn't buy more if they were a dime cheaper -- I don't lose any sleep over a buck a track. I'll take your word for it that you would, but Apple's research appears to indicate that there more consumers like me than you.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[overshoot]

I'm sure they have some justification for the pricing, but... obviously something's amiss. I'm not advocating pirating music, but I do think until a happy "middle-ground" is found, this problem will not go away.

So quit whining and act like an adult: if you don't like the RIAA's tactics, put your money behind someone who treats you better. I'm currently having a minor love affair with MagnaTune [1] but suit yourself.

Just quit pretending that it's someone else's job and that you can have it all without any inconvenience. [1] They don't do DRM, they sell you 100% recordable disk images, and they pass 50% of sales to the artists. Isn't that what we've been saying we want?
OK, they don't have your favorite payola-pumped band. That sets a pretty good price for your stated principles. Maybe if you took your money elsewhere that would change, eh?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[vettemph]

>$1 per song, $12.99 per CD
>until a happy "middle-ground" is found

The happy medium has in fact been found.
Buy one song at $1 for every 19 songs downloaded for free. That's five cents per song. I'm happy.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[amliebsch]

Why should music be any different?

It's not, as you pointed out. You can give your friend your book, and you can give your friend your CD. What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Raul654]

" The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law."

LARCENY - Illegal taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the purpose of depriving the owner of its possession. The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away by one person of the mere personal goods of another from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to the taker's use and make them his property without the consent of the owner.-Lectlaw
 
Copying copyright music does not "deprive the owner of its possession", and therefore it is not theft. Do your homoework next time.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[ScentCone]

As much as I like finding the middle ground, it's shit like this - mis understanding the argument - that makes it harder

But the parent is correct, none the less. How often do you reply with a clarifying comment when some does use the "infringment isn't theft" red herring in order to change the topic away from the fact that they're pirating anyway? I'd love to think that you're just as adamant about shouting down pirates as you are about people who argue about the semantics of the word "theft."

From my personal observations here and in other venues, a lot of people too cheap to pay the artists they claim to like what those artists are asking for their work immediately trot this and other falacious defenses, no matter how ridiculous. They won't confront the heart of the matter, which is that they're hypocritical in the extreme. It doesn't matter what they think about where the industry is or should be heading, what matters is that the at least some musicians still prefer a business arrangement whereby they are paid for the music they sell, and if you don't like that, you're welcome to listen to them on the radio or just choose entertainers that aren't looking for income from the sale of their recordings. It doesn't matter whether or not those artists will eventually be shown to be wrong about how not charging for your work will still somehow pay the bills... for now, they've asked that you pay, and they have the law on their side. If you don't like their choice of that arrangement, then you don't like them, and of course wouldn't dirty your ears with their music. Unless of course you're a hypocrite, which surely you're not.

But a whole lot of other people are, and many of them hate to get pinned down on it. They then frequently try to change the subject to imply that, hey, it's only infringement. Besides, they wouldn't have purchased the music anyway, it's all terrible Corporate Sound anyway. Um, other than the fact that they went out looking for it and got hold of it... which means they value it in some way, and thus value the artist who created it and asked that they pay for it. They just don't value the artist enough to show them that little bit of respect, that's all.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[the.Ceph]

I almost completely agree with you, except there still isn't a great solution for one's car.
I have yet to see a main stream hard drive based MP3 player for an automobile. I have seen a couple hacks, and I think one of the new BMW's had "full" iPod integration, then there is the iTrip and other music players that transmit to your FM radio but they are less than great by most accounts.

Me and my friends were trying to figure this out and the best we could come up with was lack of demand (although that's what marketing people are for), problems with a car's constant vibrations causing hard drive failure unless solid state memory is used then it cost more, and simply getting the data to the car would require either a removable hard drive or memory sticks.

I might try and rig one together at some point so if you know of any other issues I might encounter reply. Would the vibrations from a car affect a normal hard drive that much anyways?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Alphabet Pal]

The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.

So... when is breaking of the law justified? For a significant period of time, the return of runaway slaves to thier "owners" was the law in the United States. Law or no law, a lot of brave people risked incarceration to smuggle these people to freedom, and ultimately the law was changed.

Maybe $12 CD's aren't quite as morally repugnant as slavery, but "the law is the law and you should follow it whatever it says" is ridiculous.

Note to trigger-happy FBI enforcers - I don't pirate music, I just don't pass judgment on those who do.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[nkh]

The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law. I also hear that music sucks these days, and it's not worth buying. Yet the same people fill their hard drives with this "crap". That's hypocritical. Grow up.

How about the taxes I pay on every blank CDR and every GB of my hard disks? With these taxes, I help the funding of associations like the RIAA without listening to their crap.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[glassjaw rocks]

Get into the hardxcore music scene and you will see artists who are actually passionate about thier music, artists that don't sing just to get laid, they sing for the love of the music, and to get laid.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[qw(name)]

No, it's not that hard to understand. Yet, people will debate and complain about every side effect of copying but will not take the time to examine the underlying problem itself, which is copying.

Copyright issues have existed in this country for a long, long time. In fact, England pretty much forced us to incorporate copyright laws because books were being duplicated in America and sold without giving any royalties to the author/publisher. That was over 100 years ago.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[pete6677]

Outlawing (or severely restricting) recordable media is likely going to be a lot harder for the RIAA than it was for them to buy laws against online file trading.

It's easy to convince a bunch of middle aged senators that those evil computer hackers are stealing the labels' music because they typically don't have the greatest understanding of computers. But I'd be surprised to find even one US senator who has never copied an album onto a tape or received a copy from a friend. They will see that recording onto CD is the same thing, and will be a lot more reluctant to try to outlaw an activity that they know people have been doing for a long time.

Since the home tape recorder did not kill the music industry and in fact helped it, legislators will have a much harder time buying the argument that recordable CDs will kill the industry.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

so what's your solution for archival or backup storage?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[tomjen]

I hope people continue to buy lots of cds.

That way they will be cheaper for me to buy, so i can backup my hd.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Radres]

The "but I only pay $0.25 for CD-Rs, so $13 for a CD is an outrage! Bok bok bok!" kids are missing the deadly difference between gross margin and net margin. The $13 you pay for a CD covers all the operating costs (salary, overhead including shrinkage, advertising) of the retailer, as well as the distributor (5% right there, if disty margins are the same in the record industry as they are in the computer peripheral business), and must cover the cost of shipping, returns (an educated guess is that it's about 10% in the record industry), price protections (probably another 10%), co-op advertising (another 5% - 10%), the salary of everybody at the record company and studio who worked on it in some way, royalties for the composers and songwriters, and of course the COGS, which are about 25% of the sell-in price to disti. This is why even at low-overhead indy record labels, a CD must sell about 10K pieces before it breaks even (that number is said to be 100K for the big RIAA companies).

But don't the CD-R manufacturers, who are selling plastic discs at $0.05 each, have to pay many of the same costs as the record companies selling discs at $13 each? It wasn't until only recently with P2P that CD prices came down to $13, they used to be $18 or more. Don't forget that the RIAA has been convicted many times of price fixing CD's as well, which means artificially increasing the price by agreeing to have all companies that sell CD's raise their prices.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

My comment has nothing to do with your's, but since your thoughts are the first intelligent comment on the page you get to be the shark to my remora.

Attention knuckleheads! The RIAA is looking to get the US to make an equivalent of the Canadian media tax on blank optical media. If this isn't obvious, then please check your brain, it's broken.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[MyDixieWrecked]

...they have decided to turn their FUD campaign towards recordable media.

I dunno if that's really FUD, per se...

I mean, look at less technical people. The non-geeks who spend hours setting up and sorting their torrents to download the latest albums from bands they never even heard of.

There are people I work with who don't even own a computer who buy all their music for 3$/CD on the street.

Somewhere, there are rooms full of CD duplicators and color laser printers. Sweatshops where people are duping CDs and DVDs and their respective packaging by the hundreds and making back 5x their investment.

Walking up 6th Ave in Manhattan, you'll see at least one guy on each block with a table full of 5 or 10$ DVDs and 3-5$ CDs, all pirate copies. All the latest stuff.

I just think that the RI/MPAA are going after the wrong people. They should be going after the guys on the street, not the casual CompUSA shopper.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jaypaulw]

*DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA.*

sorry I shan't participate in your little boycott.

If I like music on an RIAA label I will buy it.

Obviously this is more of a political issue than a music issue for you.

And talk about FUD! I haven't yet had the slightest of inconvience listening to CDs, ripping CDs and copying them to my ipods.

For you to think that there is some grand conspiracy is hillarious.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

Nice summary. Another one of my favorite excuses is "artists who want to be paid for their work aren't artists... they're businesspeople!". Yet another is observations about Shakespeare, Mozart, etc. that reveal a grossly inadequate understanding of how commerce has worked for, well, pretty much the last two thousand years.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Chosen Reject]

And since they produce music you actually DON'T WANT to listen to, you get it illegally? Or were you just being dumb. Because if you don't get it illegally then you aren't who they are going after.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[clausiam]

As for online music sales... Apple has sold 50 million tracks, and the online music industry is growing logarithmically. It may be hard to convince them that their product is not "reasonably priced."

If they're only growing logarithmically then they really should worry. I'm guessing you meant exponentially :-)

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jb.hl.com]

Nice of you to say that we shouldn't purchase RIAA backed music...but you see, the problem is that some of us happen to like RIAA backed music. Not artists that sound like RIAA backed music, actual bands like Radiohead, the Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand, Pink Floyd, Four Tet etc who we like the music of, who happen to be backed by the RIAA.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Foobar of Borg]

It seems to me like the RIAA is stabbing blindly in the dark.

Well, you have to give them somewhat of a break. After all, they are still just now recovering from near total bankruptcy after all the money lost from people copying tapes and LPs onto duplicate tapes. How they even survived such a horrific onslaught from the evil pirates is beyond me. Occasionally, the music executives became so broke that they would have to eat one or two of their hired minstrels (and there was much rejoicing).

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Reality Master 101]

Copying copyright music does not "deprive the owner of its possession", and therefore it is not theft. Do your homoework next time.

Um, yes it does. If you're in possession of the music, then by law you have to pay for it. You have deprived the copyright holder of the payment.

Put it this way. If you work for someone, and they don't pay you, have they stolen from you? They haven't taken any possessions from you. Don't know about you, but I'd say 'yes', even though it's technically a contract violation.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[GabeK]

If you want to play your purchased music on your portable player *and* use a CD you have to buy it twice! Once for the MP3 player and once for the CD player.

And one more license for each speaker it comes out of!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Copying copyright music does not "deprive the owner of its possession", and therefore it is not theft. Do your homoework next time.

I think you completely missed the point of the argument. The point of the poster you quoted is that it is still illegal, and that the semantics of the argument used to justify breaking that law are absurd.

Besides, you took the definition for larceny, not necessarily theft. Also, there are legal definitions and social definitions, they vary in accuracy and meaning.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

The problem here is that both parts defend a suposedly ethical position, but nobody respects it's own position. People downloading music says "Copyright is wrong", and then procede to use copyrighted software, to download copyrighted music.
The RIAA says "The author's rights must be defended", and then proceed to pay the 4% of the sales to the musicians. Here are a few points of view that, wether you agree with them or not, are correct:

For the public> I'm against copyright, and i don't use copyrighted material. I use Free Software, read Free Books, if i want to listen music, i listen to the radio. I try to not give money to the people that defends copyright, and only use copyrigthed material when there is no other choice, and in that case, i pay for it like i should.
For the RIAA> We want to defend the musician's rights. You must pay for the music you buy. We give the musicians 75% of the sales, we take the rest to cover operative costs.

But both parts are talking about ethics, without any moral ground. The filesharers are against copyright, but most of them use copyrighted software. They are against the RIAA making money out of the authors efforts, but they, themselves, sell illegal CDs for a profit, or start torrent sites that have ads and paypal donation links. Many of them, when they get the chance to create something, whether music, software, a book, they copyright it (Isn't it ironic the fact that Kazaa and eDonkey are proprietary?).

If you are going to talk about ethics, first of all, you have got to set rules and respect them. When RMS decided to code GNU, he had to live his position, and to stop using many software he used. And until he could code / find Free replacements to most parts of Unix, he used Unix software, that was LEGAL.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[sl3xd]

The original poster's intent (which is clear enough to me) wasn't either for or against the "copyright infringement isn't theft" argument. His entire argument is that whether copyright infringement is technically defined as theft or not is a moot point. The original poster did nothing to refute the argument.

What the original poster did emphasize is that while copyright infringement isn't properly defined as theft, it does not in any way mean that copyright infringement is a legal practice, because it is most certainly not.

No matter what little theory you choose to delude yourself with, copyright infringement is illegal, punishible with fines up to $250,000.00 and 25 years in prison; that's a fact. Go ahead and see how well the argument that "copyright infringement isn't theft" will protect you. The courts will likely agree that copyright infringement isn't theft. "However," the courts will say, "we still have this rather heavy book of penalties for copyright infringment to throw at you. Your cell is waiting."

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[tomjen]

Bullshit.
19 x $1 = $19
20 cds at $19.
Average price is $19/20 = $0.95

Some rabete - not

Try $0.05 per song (as they are just about free), and let the good songs advertise themself. Oh and no DRM or closed formats.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[angle_slam]

When I started buying music in 1988 (after I got my first job), LPs were $9.99 and CDs were $12.99 to $15.99. Adjusted for inflation, $9.99 is $16.21. Seems to me the prices haven't changed that much.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jb.hl.com]

The difference is however that your complaint over 12 dollar CDs is motivated by your want for cheaper luxury goods. The slaves complaint over slavery was that they were being made to work against their will, in a gross violation of human rights.

Ant attempt to conflate the two is repugnant.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Radres]

Umm... have you ever tried using an mp3 player in the car? It works just fine, certainly less problems with skipping than a CD. All the auto industry really needs to do is to start offering stereo head units with an auxillary 3.5mm input. You can go to most electronics stores that sell car audio equipment and purchase an OEM stereo with the input. Then you can plug your mp3 player directly into the stereo. I much prefer transporting an mp3 player to and from my car as opposed to having to copy all of my mp3's from my computer to my car and maintaining synchronization of my library across yet another computer.

As usual, the car industry is just 3 or 4 years behind the curve on what the consumer really wants for car audio. Just look at how long it took from them to make the move from cassette tape being standard to CD being standard. There's just a large contingent of people who aren't willing to pay extra for certain features, and then it takes a while for their beauracracies to come up with a way of offering the new feature as an option that they can charge $$$ for, and then eventually it becomes standard equipment.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[garcia]

actual bands like Radiohead, the Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand, Pink Floyd, Four Tet

Radiohead allows the taping of their shows and thus I have no problems with them.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Total_Wimp]

DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA. It is only increasing their finances which are used to back legislation and smear campaigns to further erode fair-use rights.

I didn't go quite that far, but I considered, and put back, a CD with copy protection simply because it had copy protection. I'm not a zealot either. I decided not to buy it because I listen to a lot of music on my PSP and the PSP is MP3 only.

I was neither going to restrict my music to times I had a CD player handy, nor was I going to buy a different device to listen to WMAs. I can't download it from an authorized sorce in MP3 format. So is my quest to listen to high quality digital music legaly on my device at an end?

Ok, there are alternatives. I can flat out pirate the CD. I can buy it and then pirate it. I can use allofmp3 (probably the same as pirating). I can buy it on iTunes and then burn, then rip (there goes "high quality" out the window). Is it just me or does every options available to me include either pirating, low quality, lots of work or all of the above?

In the end, my decision was clear. I decided that though I liked the band, there were plenty of other bands I also liked so I bought a CD from someone else. I stayed legal, got very high quality rips and didn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get them. If they made me mud wrestle Ron Jeremy to get chocolate ice cream, you can bet I'd develop a taste for vanilla instead.

TW

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[utopianfiat]

Exactly my sentiments towards the parent.
I'm not trying to troll or anything, but it really steams me when Metallica can release new albums that all sound the same and has the nerve to support RIAA price-gouging, while this independent band I went to see on Friday, The Jonbenet, had to ask for "a few bucks" from fans "so we can eat and pay for gas while we tour".
Excuse any appearance of fanaticism. I swear it's all in your head. :-D

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jb.hl.com]

However, if you wish to buy their CDs, you would have to pay the RIAA. Which is my point. You can't go out and say "Boycott RIAA CDs" and then make exceptions...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Bullfish]

This is the same group that originally said cassette tapes would kill music. It will always be something. Up next, free radio broadcasts kill music buying.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

No middle ground will be realized until both sides of this issue grow the hell up.

You could have stopped before the word "until" and been even more correct.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[pla]

No middle ground will be realized until both sides of this issue grow the hell up.

Who wants middle ground?

I buy quite a lot of CDs (20 to 50 per month). The RIAA could consider me one of their best customers (even with over half my purchases going to indie labels), except that I deliberately buy only used discs. Why? The RIAA has basically shot themselves in the foot, in three ways:

Technologically, I loathe DRM; although I have yet to find a disc I can't rip, the mere fact that they would try to prevent me from using music I buy (and spare me the "owned-vs-licenced" semantic BS - to the typical consumer, if I pay cash for a physical product that doesn't have a return date on it, I "own" it) however the hell I want, very much offends me.

Politically, I don't like the bullying tactics of the RIAA, nor do I like their constant attempts to legislate their business model into what amounts to perpetual profit for no further work input. Although I can't hurt them all that much, I certainly won't help pay for their war-on-the-little-guy.

Economically, the most simple, they charge too much for no good reason. Do they have that right? Yes, certainly, they could charge $500 per CD if they so desired. But perception matters quite a lot - Even nonhuman primates will petulantly turn their noses at a known bad deal ("tolerable" vs "preferred" food as reward for doing something, when they've seen someone else get the preferred reward for the same task). Tapes cost around ten times as much to manufacture as CDs, yet cost half as much? Keep your lettuce, and stack your damned colored blocks by yourself!


So, who wants a middle ground? I say, Screw the RIAA. Let 'em go under. The artists will still create, they just won't have so many mob-affiliated middlemen taking a cut of the till. And thanks to the internet, the artists can actually do just that, in a manner far more effective than the old standby of offering tapes/CDs for sale at their concerts.



and the other side doesn't want to pay anything

No, one side wants too much control, and the other side wants the same "fair use" rights they've had all along. I consider the "money" part of this issue the least important.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[ScentCone]

Another one of my favorite excuses is "artists who want to be paid for their work aren't artists... they're businesspeople!"

Yeah, that's a great one. Because, you know, people who want to charge for their work? Corporate tools, man! Like, you know, that hack Peter Jackson and his cheesy movies! Corporations and capitalism are evil! Why, Michael Moore has it explained in his various documentaries which... he... um... charges for you to... see... uh, never mind.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[wed128]

nope. Record companies also have to pay for the artists themselves, studio techs, artwork designers, typesetters, and lawyers. $13 is IMHO a fair price for a CD. (I don't work for a record company, and I only have legitimate music)

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[happyemoticon]

Certain technologies which the **AA's love attempt to tie your copy of Dirty Harry to your DVD player and your DVD player only. DIVX was the first implementation of this, and it was universally shunned, but don't think for a second that they're not trying to bring it back when the next generation of digital media comes out. I know for a fact that both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have embraced digital watermarking - how it is implemented remains to be seen.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Thangodin]

Well said. I've stopped buying CD's, because I don't want to give any more money to the bloated corporate entities that overcharge for music while they screw the artists. I buy my music on iTunes now. The next step is to get a direct pipe from artists to net distribution without involving the record companies at all, something that promotes new music through user reviews and ratings, and links tastes through similarity (people with your tastes also liked...) This last part would be a natural for Google.

On the other hand, people who copy music without paying anything for it are censoring themselves. The money that you spend is a vote. You can bitch all you like about Wal Mart, but if you shop there, you're supporting it. You can rave all you like about a band, but if you never buy anything they make, nobody is going to know or care what you think. There were bands in the 90's who had a strong following amongst the computer crowd who couldn't make any money because people just shared it around. If you like it, money talks. Pay for it. Otherwise you can look forward to a world where all you can get is people like Celine Dion and Britanny Spears. In other words, music for people who are too stupid to know how to copy it.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[garcia]

However, if you wish to buy their CDs, you would have to pay the RIAA. Which is my point. You can't go out and say "Boycott RIAA CDs" and then make exceptions...

Why would I ever buy their CDs when their music is freely available?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

"Um, yes it does."

Could I suggest a Reality 101 course, Master ?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Neuroelectronic]

"Bok bok bok!" kids are missing the deadly difference between gross margin and net margin. The $13 you pay for a CD covers all the operating costs (salary, overhead including shrinkage, advertising) of the retailer, as well as the distributor (5% right there, if disty margins are the same in the record industry as they are in the......"

This just goes to show you how unefficant and outdated this business model is. The dollar isn't just a ticket you "vote" with, It also shows the path to the most efficent method of doing something. If it's cheaper, it more effective/efficent. Thus it's better for the economy overall. Obviously this isn't good for the RIAA's economy, but that's not our problem. I can burn a cd for less then a quarter, or drive to the mall, look threw a huge catalog by hand and then pay $13+ for a CD (usualy more) This is brutaly clear that the old method for music is archaic.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

"On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law. I also hear that music sucks these days, and it's not worth buying. Yet the same people fill their hard drives with this "crap". That's hypocritical. Grow up."

Thanks for clarifying, 'begging the question' and gross oversimplification are now signs of maturity. Grow the hell up? Learn some some fucking history.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[harrkev]

Copying copyright music does not "deprive the owner of its possession", and therefore it is not theft. Do your homoework next time.

So, if you take somebodys car, drive it around, and return it before he notices its absence, then it is not theft. Tell that to the cops.

This sounds like Clinton's argument that it was not really sex. The end result is that you have something that does not belong to you.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[DCheesi]

The funny thing is that you may be right; maybe $12.99 is a reasonable price in today's money. The problem is that rather than pricing CDs reasonably and then raising prices to match rising costs, the record companies kept the price at an artifically high $15+ from the birth of the format until just recently. In the process, they engendered so much consumer anger and distrust that no one will believe anything they claim about costs, etc., nor do we care.

And the only reason we're paying less now is because the "big-box" stores came in and started using music as a loss-leader. Otherwise we'd probably be paying $20 a disc by now...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is not theft, it is copyright infringement. There is a world of difference, especially in the laws.

Theft was(/is?) the physical removal of property. Whilst copyright infringement is covered under copyright law, as it is not physical removal.

Thus theft is physically taking a cd of music from a store, whilst copyright infringement is copying music off said cd.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Radres]

Well then, if you really believe that, then as they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[eyeball]

Part of the value you get when you buy a $12.99 CD is the ability to loan and share it to friends, make mixed recordings, burn to an mp3cd to play in the car, rip to my iPod, etc. It's been built into the price & value since at least the 70s.

The sharing is a big piece. Almost everyone likes to share, to introduce things to people, to be the first one to say "hey check this out."

More importantly, the ability to sell it used is also part of the hidden value. When I buy a CD, I know that even though I'm paying $13 for it, I can sell it used when I'm done with it.

With changing media and new DRM, these hidden values are being taken from the product, making that $12.99 less attractive. Suddenly you're paying $12.99 for some music that all you can do is listen to until you're sick of it, then you're stuck with it for life.

If I had to put a value on an average song that appeals to me the first 10 or 20 times I hear, then never be able to do anything with the media.. I'd say about 25 cents. Funny that's about what the artist gets paid after all the middle-men.

Oh actually addressing the post I'm replying to -- a large portion of the $12.99 you're paying on the CD is publicity.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[miyako]

Logarithmic growth actually seems fairly reasonable to me. Especially if one is looking at the number of consumers rather than the number of songs consumed.
Exponential growth would say that every day/week/month a lot of new people are starting to use online music stores.
I would guess that more likely there was an inital period of a few quarters where people started hearing about how great iTunes et al was, and started trying it out. After the initial boom, most people who want to buy music from an online music store do, and the people who don't are not interested, meaning that the graph flattens out over time.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you don't know much about Senators. They are similar to a prostitute. The exception is that a prostitute only screws their customer for money. A Senator will screw everyone for money.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[supertaster]

Part of the reason that their net is so low is that so much is spent on advertising and legal issues so that *they alone* get that remaining 20%, as 50% of what they'd get if the market were less controlled would be less that 20% in the current state (no, I can't back those specific numbers up, I should've used x's and y's, it's the mechanism I'm trying to illustrate).

I'm dubious about the 20% number. I'm sure all the numbers we see have been passed through a black box labeled "highly skilled accountancy departement."

One of the reasons we have megastars selling immense amounts of music is the advertising, which is not cheap. The record store windows, full-page ads in magazines, weekles, poster campaigns, radio spots, and so forth... The record companies spend a huge amount there, and it adds markedly to their overhead. Dropping that and letting the music be promoted by word of mouth, Internet and less mammoth advertising approaches would reduce the cost by massive proportions, but the large record labels would lose the advantage they have in being able to afford those advertising campaigns and would end up sharing the market more evenly with smaller labels. This is not on their to-do list.

20% is more than the people who wrote and played the music get.

Ever notice that when you go to see a band, $10 is just about always the price of a CD? And that's without SonyGeffenVirgin's economies of scale. Of course, they're competing with the number of drinks you can still afford to buy and the cab home...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[steve_bryan]

What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

I don't agree that your proposition is so easy to agree with and understand. CD's are inherently fragile so I have learned through repeated experience that using the original disc is foolhardy. It will fail and the only remedy available is to purchase another one.

So if I were to lend a CD to a friend I would certainly only do so with a copy of the original. As long as the replacement cost for failed media remains about $15 - $20 there is no way I would willingly agree to taking that risk.

Of course in real life I have lent out books and CDs never to see them again. That is part of the charm of the whole social process. But if I were to analyze and act rationally I would only lend copies of CD's. I'm less concerned about books because that media is not subject to the same catastrophic failure as aluminized plastic.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[rosewood]

Yea because I know those stats are bullshit. I have pirated WAY more music online then through physical media.

Oh wait...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[King_TJ]

On the "multitude of excuses for piracy" - sure, you've got a plethora of poor ones, and a few much more logical, better-worded ones. But isn't the end result ultimately the same?

I mean, whether you have 1 million people willfully violating copyright law with very strong, ethical arguments for doing so, or 1 million people willfully violating copyright because they say "It's not stealing because I didn't take anything off a store shelf, so nyah-nyah!" - you have the exact same outcome on your hands.

As you said, the answer is somewhere in the middle - but the only way to get there is for the RIAA to take the "battle" to the middle-ground. As the party holding the copyrights on the content, it's up to them to make that move first.

Personally, I don't really believe the problem is that "the other side doesn't want to pay anything". I've got a collection of well over 120 music CDs that I purchased through the mid to late 80's and to a lesser extent into the early 90's. After that, it dropped off to nearly no new CD purchases. Most of the people I know who are around my age (early to mid 30's) have a similar story. Is it because we suddenly decided the industry owed us all of our music for free? No... I've purchased a few select tracks from the iTunes store, even when I could as easily have fired up Limewire or something and downloaded them for free. But overall, I don't like being forced to pay full price for a CD of mostly mediocre material, just to get 1 or 2 tracks I want. And unlike in the 80's, the technology now makes it blatantly obvious that it *should* be possible to do that. Yet - I still can't walk into a store, queue up a list of tracks I want and have it spit out a custom made "mix" CD for me of what I purchased, all for anything resembling a "fair price".

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Alphabet Pal]

in a gross violation of human rights

So... if it turned out that those CD's were manufactured in a slave labor camp overseas, in gross violation of human rights, then would you consider it ok to conflate the two and pirate them?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

you dont think that CD prices are absurdly high? You think that music prices are actually governed by the evaluation of the ideal elasticity of demand, with the RIAA companies setting their prices in line with the Quantity Demanded? BULLSHIT. you know why? demand is slipping, and prices stay the same, or increase. If you're going to brush away reasonable complaints about the price of a good with econ 100 jargon, you might as well remember what all econ 100 teachers should tell you, that nice little ideal graph about supply and demand, and the law of demand and all that good stuff goes out the window when dealing with a monopoly. The RIAA companies are the only suppliers of the music they produce, and it is delusional to think of them as anything but a monopoly on the distribution of other people's art.

The record companies only net 20%? I'm fucking heartbroken. you do realize that included in those expenses taken out of the net profit calculation is payments to the artists who make the music in the first place, to the production studios and teams who make the top-selling artists not sound like crap, and all the salaries of all other employees involved, from the receptionists to the CEO's? A 20% annual return on an investment is pretty fucking slick.

A previous poster had it right. The RIAA's actions are nothing more than the heavy-handed politics of a conglomerate trying to preserve its comfortable business model through legislating its interests.
Nothing new as far as the corporate world goes, but lets at least tell it how it is.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus another one for each person who might potentially hear it.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Saxerman]

So where's the middle ground? One side wants too much money, and the other side doesn't want to pay anything. Good luck with that!

There are certainly more than two sides to this issue. In the middle you have those of us currently paying to buy songs from non-RIAA labels, and those who buy CDs of albums and singles and pay again to download from iTunes and again to get the ringtone. The problem here is not that people are not paying for music. The RIAA would claim the problem is that not enough people are paying for it, while the content consumers would complain that they're already paying too much for too little.

If we really want to generalize and create two sides we can declare that there is some amount of money X that the consumer masses are willing to spend on music. On one side you would have the content providers who want to put as little work as possible into providing their music for very large values of X. The content consumers want to get as much quality entertainment as they can for their presumably lower values of X. Economic Principles say there is some cross-over point, but common economics doesn't really apply since the supply of music isn't the number of tapes recorded or CDs pressed, but the variety and quality of music available.

I would maintain that the real problem lays in the murky legal area of copyright law where the word of law no longer represents the will of the people. It could even be maintained that copyright law no longer represents the common good it was designed to serve. Copyrights are supposed to encourage the creation of creative works, not serve of a bully point for the content providers to demand profits.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[zombie-m]

I havn't bought a RIAA CD in years. But I havn't pirated anything in years either.

Same here. There seem to be many people who boycott the RIAA and just refuse to give them any money, but turning around and downloading songs off of P2P networks just makes the RIAA right when they talk about downloading leading to decreased sales.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[cayenne8]

I guess it is largely due to my not seeing much new music out of late that I want to buy, but, I've never seen a DRM'ed cd before. It sounds like they are only 'un-rippable' if you use them on a windows box...but, that you could easily do it with a Linux box?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[chefmonkey]

Admittedly the data points are becoming harder to locate, but I'm going to assert "complete and utter bullshit," based on the relative costs of CDs and Cassettes (which are much more expensive to manufacture, by the way).

Here's one datapoint for you; you can find others. (For example, "The Very Best of Kenny Rogers" on Amazon: $5.95 on tape versus $9.95 on CD). Based on what I've seen, margins on CDs must top 50% -- unless record companies take a significant loss on cassettes.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Stauf]

Copyright infringment is not the same crime as piracy or theft. They are different. Consider how you'd feel if you spent most of your life being a singer, and someone referred to you as a dancer.

I am not arguing that piracy is ok. But compared to actually stealing something? It's not the same thing. It's even worse when you call it 'piracy', because piracy is a much worse crime still.

Using the terms 'piracy' and 'theft' make it look as though you don't understand the issue. Their use makes it appear that you don't actually know what you're accusing these people of. Imagine, if you're arrested for breaking the speed limit, hauled into court and the judge starts handing down a sentence for manslaughter. Imagine if you start to say 'but I was only speeding' and he shouts you down with the 'but isn't it the same thing?' argument.

But I agree with the most of your post - it's not a defense to argue that the terms you are using are wrong; all it really just shows is that a) you don't truly understand the issue or b) you're not interested in using the language correctly.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[cayenne8]

"How about the taxes I pay on every blank CDR and every GB of my hard disks? With these taxes, I help the funding of associations like the RIAA without listening to their crap."

Hmm..where do you live? I've never known of any special tax I've ever paid on a blank cd or hd that goes to the RIAA?? Just state/federal sales tax where I've lived.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Trestop]

Or you could use playfair/hymn/whatever-its-called-now on the itunes download.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that one of the reasons for all the controversy and confusion surrounding copyright issues is that people keep trying to make analogies comparing digital property to physical objects, which just doesn't work. Good luck telling that to a Senator, though.

And what the hell is with ads in theatres about piracy? I've just paid to watch a movie legally and they reward me by (wrongfully) accusing me of theft?

But after all, yes, copyright infringement is still illegal.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[uncoveror]

Mitch Bainwol sounds like a broken record from the '80s.

Home taping is killing the recording industry...skip
Home taping is killing the recording industry...skip
Home taping is killing the recording industry...skip

Since they are still around, it wasn't true then. It isn't true now either. They claim that sales are down, but are making a killing with their obscene markups in spite of the poor quality of today's popular music. Price gouging, DRM, lousy music, and treating customers like criminals are several reasons why I don't buy CDs.

Before anyone whines and moans about hurting the artists by not buying, I will point out that RIAA stands for Recording Industry Association of America. Niether "A" stands for artists. Never has. Never will.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Neoprofin]

It's not hypocritical, it's poor taste. Saying the music isn't worth downloading and then downloading it would be hypocritical, saying the new Pauly Shore movie is pure box-office poison and then going to see it anyway is poor taste. See the difference? "Copyright infringement isn't theft isn't an excuse to break the law, but it is a court ruling and a defense against the __AA assault (now including movie trailers) that "copyright infringement is theft."

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[sanosuke76]

Uh, look up the RioCar some time. They were hard drive based MP3 players, running an embedded version of Linux, and worked rather nicely. If I remember right, they used laptop hard drives and mounted the file systems read-only when they were in the car (vs read/write when plugged into USB). When you wanted to change out music, you just pulled it from your dash (the whole unit came out via a system resembling an HD caddy) and plugged it in at your desk. They stopped making them back in ... '02 or '03, can't remember which. The market just wasn't willing to pay for 'em at the $400-$500 price point.

Nowadays, it would be trivially cheap to put together a next-gen RioCar. But, no one is bothering to do so for reasons I don't quite get.

Now, one issue is friends (most importantly, gf's/dates) who wish to play music in your car - you're pretty much stuck with CDs there. But if a new RioCar like player were to include a CD-ROM drive as well, that would eliminate the last semi-reasonable barrier I can see, feature wise.

Oh yeah, I forgot... you could play Pong on the thing too.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Dun Malg]

I think you completely missed the point of the argument. The point of the poster you quoted is that it is still illegal, and that the semantics of the argument used to justify breaking that law are absurd.

Actually, I think you are missing the point. Calling it "theft" inaccurately frames the infraction as something universally regarded as immoral: the taking of another's property. Copyright infringement falls very much in a gray area. Heck, the very notion of copyright didn't even exist for the majority of recorded history. The fact that copyright infringement is currently a crime doesn't automatically promote it to the same level as theft. The justification for breaking the law is that the law is bad. Legality and morality are not always 1:1.

Besides, you took the definition for larceny, not necessarily theft. Also, there are legal definitions and social definitions, they vary in accuracy and meaning.

Yeah, you can easily muddle the argument with non-legal usages of the word "theft", but they're essentially irrelevant to the question of the legality of copyright infringement, and the morality aspect is purely a matter of opinion. No reasonable person would ever attempt to claim legal or moral equivalence for a vernacular usage (e.g. "That bitch stole my boyfriend" is not rational debate), so claiming the OP could have been referring to common usage when it was a clear reference to debate. Clearly, society does not agree on that copyright infringement is the moral equivalent of theft, otherwise there'd be a whole lot less of it. Social mores are a consensual thing-- they don't exist on their own.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

So if CD profit margins are so terrible, why can I buy a DVD for almost the same price? A product which certainly takes far more technical and creative effort to produce than a CD (90-120+ minutes of audio, visual, and interactives compared to just 74 minutes or less of music)? And don't tell me it's because the movie business has ways to make money that the record labels don't; they're making serious profits on DVD sales, even projects which go direct to video. Consumers are happily buying DVDs en masse, while they resent paying similar prices for CDs. You know something? The customer is always right.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Jambon]

You can bet that Apple and the record companies have done the requisite surveys and research on elasticity and demand to know that $1.00 is the right price to charge....I don't lose any sleep over a buck a track.

While you may not lose sleep over a buck a track, think about someone who just got an iPod and doesn't have a large music collection. All of a sudden they have the ability to carry 5000 songs around with them. They didn't have that before. They liked a lot of different kinds of music, but at $20 a cd, couldn't afford it. They see iTunes and think "Hey, a buck a song ain't bad", so they start downloading. $50 in, they realize they have a ton more stuff they want (not crap, stuff they actually like), and not a lot more money. What to do?

In this hypothetical situation (which is actually rather common), this person is going to spend several thousand dollars filling up a $300 device. I don't know about you, but that just doesn't seem right to me.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[highspl]

DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA.

....unless the money doesn't go to the RIAA (www.mp3search.ru).....

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[glassjaw rocks]

Metallica blows dead bears, old stuff or new.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see Sony (recording industry) suing Sony (recording media industry).

Sony is one of the brightest examples how RIAA has it wrong. Sony is like a dog chasing its own tail, they have to make up their mind what they want. Do they really expect people to buy 100 pack CD-Rs for $10 and actually have enough data to fill it with?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[g2devi]

> The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite,

Depends. What country do you live in and what are the laws? You're assuming that all countries agree on what copyright infringement means and what is an is not theft.

In Canada, you pay a blank medium tax so that you are allowed (by law) to make CD copies and give them to friends via sneakernet or download via P2P (but not upload). In the US, things are different.

Breaking the DMCA is also allowed for interoperability. I run Linux, so if I purchase an Audible book, it's okay for me to infringe on the copyright (which says no breaking of the encryption), if my only purpose is to listen on Linux. In the US, the situation is less clear.

In some countries, copyright is less than the "Sunny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" specifies and/or it might not cover all the work that was extended (e.g. Mickey Mouse might be public domain).

> So where's the middle ground? One side wants too
> much money, and the other side doesn't want to
> pay anything.

You're missing the point. It's not about money, it's about control. (see
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/IWtbF .html
)

* Information wants to be expensive because knowledge is power. The right information in the right place just changes your life or keep you in a comfortable living. In the case of privacy, protecting the right information from getting may allow you to even have a life worth living (e.g. Gattaca - the lead character used deception to avoid unjust DNA discrimination).

* Information wants to be free because information is hard to control (secrets get out even with draconian laws) and because it's so easy to combine it with other information to create something bigger than the sum of its parts.

There's a constant battle between these two ideas and each country makes its own choices on where to draw the information control line. If your society dispises draconian laws or values innovation, then the "free side" wins more. If your society values free enterprise at the expense of innovation and doesn't mind draconian laws, the "expensive side" wins more. If privacy is values, the "expensive side" wins more. If collaboration and self respect is the norm in the society so privacy isn't an issue, then the "free side" wins more.

There's no clear cut easy answer for any culture.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[JazzCrazed]

It's not easy to agree with, for sure, but it is easy to understand. CD's, and books as well, wear down with time and use - doesn't matter, you still can't legally copy them and distribute them.

It may cost $15-$20 for you to replace your CDs when they wear down - through your own or your friends' use - but I'm sure it's $15-$20 the RIAA would gladly see you pay. And paying repeatedly for the same music makes it easy to understand why the greedy RIAA imposes in such a manner.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[snillfisk]

What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.

Except in countries like "Norway" and a few other civilized parts of the world, where sharing between friends is perfectly legal, and is in fact, protected by law. Certain corporations are of course trying to change this, so it's not easy to say how long it will remain the way that it has been for decades.

More information can probably be found at EFN.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A CD-R is significantly different than a pressed music CD.

1) No jewel case. Your $0.05 CD-Rs come on a spindle in lots of 100 or more. Your average music CD comes in lots of 1, each with it's own jewel case.

2) No cover art, silkscreen or inserts. Your $0.05 CD-Rs are just plain old pieces of media. Your average music CD usually has a silk screened image on the CD itself as well as cover artwork for the jewel case and an insert of some variety.

3) No royalties. Your $0.05 CD-R has no royalties associated with it. Your average pressed CD has royalties for the performer and for the song writer.

4) Fuck it. If you can't see the difference, then you never will. Must be nice to be intentionally blind.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[MostlyHarmless]

Just FYI: iTunes still gives just as much money to the "bloated corporate entities that overcharge for music while they screw the artists". See Downhill Battle for an admittedly biased perspective (that nonetheless gets the facts right in terms of where the money goes).

Also, I agree with your perspective that the money you spend is a vote; but while it is a vote for the band, it is also a vote for the System. Buying merchandise or going to a concert (if you live in an area that bands actually go to; i.e., not where I live) is one way you could vote for the band, but not the RIAA, with your dollars.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[PunkOfLinux]

If only it weren't true.

In all reality, pirating (at least for me) makes me actually want to buy cd's.
normally, i think that everything sold today on cd's/dvd's is shit. If my friend recommends me an artist to go download, I'll give it a shot, because we tend to have similar tastes. If i like what i hear, most of the time i'll actually buy a cd (for example, i just bought 2 darude cd's and rammstein's reise reise.)
Basically, the RIAA wants to be able to say "We want YOU to spend YOUR hard-earned 20 bucks on a cd that only has 2 decent songs on it. Don't download it! It 'hurts the artists!' (read: hurts our bottom line) Be a good slave to our fucked-up system, and we'll reward you by giving you more crap to listen to!"

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[tgibbs]

I know I sure wouldn't buy more if they were a dime cheaper -- I don't lose any sleep over a buck a track.

I might buy more if they were a dime cheaper, but would I buy enough more? I'd have to buy at least 11% more (that's assuming zero per download cost for Apple) for them to break even.

So sure, people would undoubtedly buy more music if it was a dime a track instead of a buck--but would they really buy over ten times as much? So I agree, Apple is probably pretty close to the profit-maximizing price point.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

If you work for someone, and they don't pay you, have they stolen from you?

No they haven't stolen from you. They have violated employment law and can be sued for it; it's not the same as stealing, yet it is illegal none the less.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

i totally back you up. do you think the examplo of 6th avenue is terrible, you should come and see how piracy is here in venezuela, we have a whole boulevard in caracas (maybe 3 km long) with a guy selling either pirated software or music every two meters, everytime there is traffic on the freeway there comes a bunch of guys selling burned dvds, the biggest distribution and copying center in the city is behind the building of the supreme court of the country (isn't that ironic), and the sorry thing is that RIAA is going after the people who download music, the problem is not those who download music, but the guys at the copying center , in other context it is understandable that pirated content is such a prolific industry here in venezuela given that any original content costs twice as it would cost in the US and the minimum wage is well bellow a tenth of the minimum wage in the US, and there is nothing an education campaing would do because buying pirated content is very fixed in the culture of all the young people here, maybe what the posters of illegal content should go more underground so finding things will become harder, that way things will surely calm down, content will be more difficult to find, for the average downloader that uses kazaa, or any massive p2p network, in that same sense the riaa should trigger legal action against the ppl that run the duplication centers, that way pirated content will diminish considerably, and for those who know how to find things on the net things will stay kind of the same as they are now, they will still have access to content

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jedidiah]

The RIAA are actively conspiring to make both my work day and my leisure time remarkably more inconvenient. To refuse to support funding the RIAA in such efforts is hardly political. It's simple self-preservation.

            The RIAA is trying to increase the cost of doing business for everyone else. Some companies wouldn't be able to tolerate that.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[angle_slam]

I don't agree that your proposition is so easy to agree with and understand. CD's are inherently fragile so I have learned through repeated experience that using the original disc is foolhardy. It will fail and the only remedy available is to purchase another one.

Even my 3 year old knows that you only hold a CD by the edge. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Radres]

Oh my god! The jewel case and paper insert must cost like $10 each to produce. It's a wonder that the RIAA makes any money. The royalties? I believe it's like $2 per CD.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[banuk]

buy music b/c its good, not b/c its cheap.... that's another thing they don't understand... new music blows same with new movies, its not b/c people are burning mad copies of the new movies its that the movies are bad and no one wants to spend good money on a bad thing

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jedidiah]

The middle ground would come when the likes of RIAA live up to their social contract and allow us to freely download all works older than 28 years.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Dun Malg]

The original poster's intent (which is clear enough to me) wasn't either for or against the "copyright infringement isn't theft" argument. His entire argument is that whether copyright infringement is technically defined as theft or not is a moot point. The original poster did nothing to refute the argument. What the original poster did emphasize is that while copyright infringement isn't properly defined as theft, it does not in any way mean that copyright infringement is a legal practice, because it is most certainly not. No matter what little theory you choose to delude yourself with, copyright infringement is illegal

The original poster was making a strawman argument. No one who claims "copyright infringement != theft" thinks it's therefore not illegal. The "not theft" argument is an attempt to explain to the apparently willfully ignorant that copright is an unnatural monopoly on the exchange of information and is, on the scale of human history, a very recent development. With the exception of a few isolated tribes who essentially have nothing anyway, most of humanity has always considered the taking of someone else's stuff to be wrong. The singing of someone else's songs or telling of someone else's stories, however, had been encouraged as the passing of oral history until a mere 500 years ago with the invention of the printing press. Once a way was discovered to commit such things to salable form, however, governments created the notion of copyright as a way to cash in on the information trade.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[quanticle]

I don't know either, but you might not be able to play them on a Linux box.

I have heard of DRM'd media causing trouble on older CD players.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[lgw]

But why even focus concern on recordable disks (or "discs" I guess in this case). Cheap 1GB memory sticks can't be far off, and a handfull of those would hold all the music most people listen to in any week, and easily transfer songs between people and hard drives without any burning software.

The RIAA always seems to be a bit behind the times.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jaypaulw]

What are some examples of this?

I just have not been affected

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[macdaddy357]

In these screwed up times, "intellectual property", pure vapor, has become worth more than something you can hold in your hand or weigh on a scale. That is absurd. The recording industry represents the worst of this, treating customers like thieves and artists like slaves. With such people there just isn't any middle ground. Compromising with someone who is wrong makes you wrong too.

The time has come for the recording industry as it exists now to join the horse and buggy in the dustbin of history. Maybe Copyright belongs there, too. It locks up an idea as property. This is just as much censorship as suppressing it. This was considered a good thing so long as it promoted the progress of science and the useful arts. It doesn't do this any more. I submit that its day has passed. Copyright should simply be abolished. People will still prefer the genuine article to a knock-off if the price is reasonable.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[lgw]

Used CDs are also a viable alternative. I'm not the sort to embrace boycotts and other such movements, but it's as easy to buy a used CD as a new one these days, online or otherwise. There are legal ways to pay a reasonable price for music.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Waffle Iron]

If you work for someone, and they don't pay you, have they stolen from you?

No. You're being just as sloppy as with copyright infringement.

And if the employer declares bankruptcy, he won't even be legally required to ever pay you. You can't get a free pass like that from the consequences of *genuine* theft.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[tolkienfan]

Actually, duplicating some of a CD or cassette tape for a friend or family member has long been accepted as fair-use - ie not requiring authorization from the copyright holder.

So is duplicating some of a book.

The monopoly provided by copyright is there for one reason and one reason only: promoting science and the "useful arts".

The RIAA and MPAA and others (including the software industry) have perverted copyright to promote their own interests.

Unless we fight, we will continue to lose ground.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad for them. If I buy a box truck to haul three cubic feet of material, it's not anyone else's responsibility that I be able to find inexpensive stuff to fill the rest of the space that I foolishly obtained.

Note that the analogy breaks down because the larger iPod isn't any more expensive to maintain than smaller players (including smaller iPods), so even if music is accumulated over the life of the device it can be worth it to get larger than one needs at the beginning. Still, it's no one else's responsibility to make sure that music is inexpensive to purchase after-the-fact.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

And if your 3 year old were to accidently drop it, or leave it in the sun, or if the player were to mechanically break down and scratch the CD (especially computers reading digitally at 52x)...then what?

CDs are fragile, and using the originals, as the GP said, is foolhardy given the price.

I treat my books like the valuable units they are, but if I were to drop one on the floor or sit on it, there would be no apocolypse for me. I can't say the same for CDs (and DVDs, also)!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Pofy]

>Um, yes it does. If you're in possession of the
>music, then by law you have to pay for it.

What law is that? What law says you must pay for anything in your possession? There are many ways to come by things without paying for it nad not being illegal. As far as copyright goes, paying has nothing to do with it.

>You have deprived the copyright holder of the
>payment.

And that has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jedidiah]

Except they bill ALL of these expenses back to the artists themselves. The RIAA are the biggest thieves of all in this situation. Compared to them, the rest of us are just irrelevant amateurs.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[quanticle]

Yes, but until my car stereo accepts USB connections, I'll be burning CDs.

Also, I don't think that the RIAA is really going after home users in this case (unlike the campaign against P2P). Instead they're going after people who buy a single CD and burn hundreds of copies for the purpose of selling. I've seen people on street corners selling the latest 50 Cent album for $3 to $5.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[MemeRot]

Delete the studio techs from that list. With most major label contracts the band actually ends up paying for the studio time as it comes out of the profits from the album.

Which is why someone smart, like PJ Harvey, would take $5,000 of her own money and record cheaply, so she's not paying for a bunch of studio time out of the album's profits.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a simple solution to that: just don't buy Dirty Harry on DVD. :)

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[SeeTheLight]

or if the player were to mechanically break down and scratch the CD (especially computers reading digitally at 52x)

Add to that list "or if the player were to completely shatter the CD while trying to read it in the drive.". I've seen it happen once.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[GoldAnt]

"Even my 3 year old knows that you only hold a CD by the edge. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?" How hard is the concept of grasping? Not Hard At All :). You just stick out your hand, close yer fingers...and...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Insipid Trunculance]

I know I'd buy more music (cd, mp3 or ?) if it was reasonably priced.

Only RIAA knows about their Business model but ever since i registered with allofmp3.com ,i have been buying humongous amounts of music.If a music track is £1.50 as it is on iTunes ,I think thrice before buying nothing.On the other hand since a track on allofmp3.com is only 10-20c (or under 10 p),i buy a lot just to listen to a different sound and hey if i dont like it , no problem , its not that great a sum of money.

Just the way i do things and suspect many others do as well.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Dashing Leech]

"The point of the poster you quoted is that it is still illegal, and that the semantics of the argument used to justify breaking that law are absurd."

You are correct that this was the original point. What (mostly) everybody has been saying is that this is (a) incorrect, and (b) not a good point. It is incorrect because people don't use the argument to justify breaking the law, they use it to argue the severity of the problem. It is not a good point because it presents the issue as a binary problem -- either it is something illegal or it isn't. Both murder and speeding are illegal, but that does not make them equivalent. The severity, or even existence, of the harm is very important and relevant to discussions on this topic, and passing them off as mere "excuses" to break the law simply shows a lack of understanding of the actual issues.

"...there are legal definitions and social definitions..."

I'm going to have to call you on this too. While it's true definitions can vary, the connotations associated with theft and piracy are much worse than for the actual act of copyright infringment, and it is those associated connotations that is at the forefront of the RIAA/MPAA campaign against copyright infringement. Even their commercials talk say "You wouldn't steal a purse. You wouldn't steal a car. You wouldn't steal a CD. So why would you steal music by downloading?" They are running a campaign to get people to think about copyright infringement as equivalent to actual theft of material goods, which is isn't. Writing it off as semantics misses the point that the semantics are very important here because of the connations which affect public perception, severity of penalties that get written into law, and even removal of rights such as fair use.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Foobar of Borg]

This is really more about the difference between law and ethics. Ethically, I would agree with you that the employer is stealing from you. Legally, however, the two are different. If your employer does not pay you, you can sue your (now former) employer for your pay. It is a civil and not a criminal matter. If your employer, however, breaks into your house and robs you of an equal amount of money, it is now a criminal matter and he can spend a considerable time as a guest of the state. I would see copyright in the same light. From a moral standpoint, you could argue that it is stealing, but not from a legal standpoint. (oh, and I am not a lawyer, it's just my 2 cents).

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[bigberk]

Then maybe you should learn to put your values ahead of entertainment. Not to sound harsh, but this isn't going to work unless you stick up for what you believe is right.

In my case, I believe in the public's fair use of media and the right for someone who owns equipment (e.g. computer equipment or audio equipment) to do whatever they want with it. I will not buy crippled computer equipment, and I will not support the companies responsible for WIPO, DMCA (US), C-60 (Canada) etc.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[radish]

I'm less concerned about books because that media is not subject to the same catastrophic failure as aluminized plastic.

CD -> Sharp implement
Book -> Hot implement, wet implement

If I lend a CD to a friend I do so with the implicit, unstated assurance that if they lose or damage it, they will buy me a new one. Exactly the same as if I lend them a book, or my car, all of which are liable to sudden catastrophic destruction in the right situation.

Libraries lend out original copies of books, and CDs, and DVDs, and other media. They don't seem to require special procedures due to the nature of the media.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Nasarius]

Why would I ever buy their CDs when their music is freely available?

Wait. You mean you never buy albums from taper-friendly artists?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[brainee28]

Steve Jobs, in an interview talking about Itunes and the Ipod, stated the largest problem with the recording industry is that their business model is flawed. Most businesses start out on a revenue based model(gross profit-operating costs=net profit). This is the model Apple Computer uses(yes, it's more complicated than that, but that's relatively what's done)

The recording companies are not entirely on this model. Recording companies work more off a "bank" model of business, in that they loan out vast sums of money to artists to create these albums, then collect the royalties off the sales of the albums, so they can redistribute that money to another artist as a "loan" against album sales.

Even if the album makes $500,000 in sales, the recording companies make a bundle; their operating costs only account for 3% of their total revenue; the majority of the royalties are profit for them; not the artist. Jessica Simpson makes only $.33 per CD. (A new artist's contract is usually between .07 and .11 per CD) so the artist doesn't make a whole lot. The majority of that money is used to pay the expenses of someone else usually. The business model is flawed. If music sales go down (just like they have been lately), then their model is threatened. If they would have moved to a revenue based model, this wouldn't happen anymore. They could sustain product losses much easier. And weed out talent that isn't talent.

Like Jessica Simpson.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

mod that up, brilliant counter argument.

at the same time though, if we don't like the RIAA or MPAA rules we should use someone else's rules like the CC's. Nothing says we HAVE to use their products.

Someone in a previous post mentioned letting a friend borrow a book, a more correct analogy would be letting them borrow the digital book. Chances are if they really liked the book they would buy it to have an easier to read copy. Same thing with music, if the listener REALLY likes the music they will buy it. if they don't they'll either get it from their friend, from the internet or borrow it from the library. If during that time they keep that copy, oh well.

I'm all for destructible copies. If you want to solve this problem make the ink in CD-R and DVD-R only last a week or something (or a specific audio/movie one that does, it's nice using CD-R/DVD-R for legitimate back-up purposes. No reason you couldn't do Keyed MP3's that track who made them and self destruct if copied to another computer or device that isn't licensed.

but the two media congolomerates wouldn't even give that much to the consumers of their "goods".

alas I'll be over using other licenses from now on.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[not-enough-info]

Apple has sold 50 million tracks...

The other 450 million tracks downloaded were of course given away on free music Tuesdays.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the home tape recorder did not kill the music industry and in fact helped it, legislators will have a much harder time buying the argument that recordable CDs will kill the industry.

ITYM "The RIAA will have a much harder time buying the legislators."
HTH

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[observer7]

f.u.c.k. the RIAA

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[drew]

Amazingly enough, at $12.99 per CD, record companies typically net significantly less than 20% at the end of the year. If you were to plot the net margins of all the companies from which you buy goods and services, CDs would be on the far left of the graph. Choosing to pay or not pay for CDs is one thing, but it's not accurate to state that CD prices are "unreasonable" if one also happily buys food at the supermarket, clothing at the mall, PCs (including parts and accessories), and countless other items from industries that typically enjoy net margins well in excess on what the record industry relies on.

perhaps the record companies themselves may not have that high of margins (if you really believe 20% is that low- i certainly don't, especially if your comparison is supermarkets and other retailers, but i digress) but you also have to consider where that other 80% goes. There is an awful lot of creative accounting that goes on in the music business. In most other businesses, there is a lot of competition, and therefore a lot of pressure to keep all of the expenses as low as possible. For retailers (for example) that means almost all of the expenses go into getting products into the store and onto the shelves. other than a few store managers, most salaries are minimum or near minimum wage.

The recording industries are a whole other ball of yarn. Where does all that money go? I speculate that maybe 20%-30% goes into all of the places that you listed. Another poster mentioned cd-r's which sell for less than 50 cents a piece and got written off. But really, most of the costs that you enumerate (operating costs of the shipper and distributor, returns, etc..) apply just as much to blank cd's as they do to real cd's. so all of that is just handwaving. when you pay $15 for a cd, less than about three dollars is (or could be, in an efficient economy) going to shipping, distributing, etc. We know that the artists typically get less than a dollar per cd as well. (I had a pie chart once that shows where all the money from a typical cd purchase goes. I wish I could find it now.) Most of the money gets payed out in advertising, salaries, and similar expenses which are much higher than they need to be (Jack Valenti's comment about $60-$70K not being a lot to live on springs to mind here).

The key here is not what the record companies profit margins are, but what their expenses are. If there were any real competition in the music business, competition that forced the record companies to price their CDs competetively, they could probably reduce the price of a CD by about 20-30% without cutting into their profit margin by being more careful with their expenses. Of course, that's standard practice in any other industry.

As an aside regarding Apples online music service. Apparently it's working for them, but if I am going to pay a dollar per song, I see no attraction to buying them from Apple versus buying the actual physical CD (usually less than a dollar per track) and having all of the following which you can't get from Apple:
1) full quality uncompressed audio
2a) ability to chhoose my preferred encoding format and compression ratio for digital storage
2b) ability to choose any hardware or software player to listen to my music on
3) ability to share the cd with friends
4) ability to resell the cd if I decide I don't want it anymore.

Why anybody (particularly anyone who ever complained that CD's cost too much) would be willing to pay a higher price for significantly reduced utility is beyond me. Of course, as I said, it seems to be working for Apple, so more power to them...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Belial6]

"returns (an educated guess is that it's about 10% in the record industry)"

Where is it that you are returning CDs? I have yet to find a store that will allow returns. And 10%?!?!?! Are you saying that these few mythical stores that allow returns on CDs are somehow taking enough returns to account for 10% of all sales?

Perhaps you are saying that returns COST 10% of the gross CD sales. That would require even MORE returns. I call BS.

With the return numbers so obviously made up, none of your other numbers can be considered even remotely likely.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[metamatic]

The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.

Perhaps eventually, then, the proponents of copyright will wise up and stop lying that copyright infringement is theft. That way there will be no need for distracting "Copyright infringement isn't theft" responses, yes?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Travelsonic]

If you're in possession of the music, then by law you have to pay for it.

Hmmm... so I broke the law by downloading music from dmusic.com, and didn't pay for it because the artists placed it up there to download for free?

No? Ok then, simply having music does not require payment as independent music artists show, to legally download free music you need to have permission, sometimes given by payment, but your argument clearly excluded a group alltogether.

You have deprived the copyright holder of the payment.

This argument is old and tired. You could potentially hold off giving the artist money, you could not. But who are you to all of a sudden "know" that just on the one basis that somebody downloaded a 'tune? You aren't because you don't know. The person might buy the song on Itunes or Napster, or buy the CD, he/she may not, but that is no reason to continue an attitude perpetuated where all of a sudden entitlement became a nauseating child wanting a lollypop crying affair that it has become. Yes the artist didn't directly make the money he/she wanted, but who is that person to say that he/she won't recieve payment? And if he/she doesn't from one or two people, it it really the end of the world? Shit happens, and I think that if you can only resort to things like what has been displayed by the RIAA/some artists, and don't at least make an honest effort to make it through the challenges provided to you (which will always exist, mind you) they have chosen the wrong field to work though.

If you work for someone, and they don't pay you, have they stolen from you? They haven't taken any possessions from you. Don't know about you, but I'd say 'yes', even though it's technically a contract violation.

The reasoning behind this one you will have to work out on your own...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[wuice]

I hope someone taking your position that you have to "put your values first" isn't shopping at Wal-Mart or buying any of the products that benefit directly or indirectly from outsourced slave labor, which nowadays is pretty much anything. I think the RIAA is bad and are fighting against the interests of the average person, but they have nothing on REAL corporate evil-doers.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Phisbut]

Actually, duplicating some of a CD or cassette tape for a friend or family member has long been accepted as fair-use - ie not requiring authorization from the copyright holder.

So is duplicating some of a book.

Not quite sure if it's the same because I didn't RTA, but the French-Canadian equivalent of the RIAA recently did a raid on recordable media. What they did is go to some flea markets to actually shut down the kiosks that were obviously selling illegal copies (French link). And it did work, because when they came back the next week, 60% of the CD kiosks at those markets were gone.

This is probably what the RIAA is looking to do, shut down people who *sell* illegal CDs, not people who simply make a backup copy for their friend and such.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[lightyear4]

does this sound like the whining of the MPAA over betamax and vhs to anyone else?

People like music. People want music. ..Its the old argument all over again: Recordable media have very likely helped to generate revenue for the RIAA et al. (via the spread of unknown artists, creation of a fanbase, etc etc etc.)

Bottom line: this is an old old argument with an obvious flaw - as with videotapes, revenues generated far outweigh the revenues lost.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Scudsucker]

Put it this way. If you work for someone, and they don't pay you, have they stolen from you?

Considering there's no copying involved, I don't see how your analogy is the best put forward. Here's a better one: you ever watch football? When a receiver fails to make a catch for whatever reason, does that mean that the team lost yardage? Of course not, you can't "lose" something you never had in the first place.

So the sum total amount of money "lost to piracy" is zero and will always be zero. That doesn't mean it's not wrong or illegal, the same way arson manages to be wrong and illegal, even though it's not theft.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Travelsonic]

So, if you take somebodys car, drive it around, and return it before he notices its absence, then it is not theft. Tell that to the cops.

...

Of course it was theft, you took a posession from somebody, deprived it from their usage.

It is not the same as copying anything.... this is another argument that gets really old and really annoying.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Dwindlehop]

A more apt example might be Prohibition. An activity which had little moral repugnance to most of the population was illegal for a time, but finally became legal. Certainly people who sold alcohol during Prohibition were breaking the law, and I doubt few would try to argue that "beer wants to be free." In 1933, when Prohibition was lifted, all the people who were breaking the law by going to speakeasies were suddenly on the right side of the law again. Were they justified in breaking the law before 1933? No, but neither were they wrong to want a drink.

Once again, we have an activity, now copyright infringement due to filesharing, which currently is illegal and which millions of Americans do anyway. It's like being in the middle of Prohibition. Is one justified in breaking this law? No, but neither is one wrong to want to fileshare. Perhaps the nation's electorate will once again communicate what it wants to its government, over the objections of a vocal minority.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Mr2001]

On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.

And no one says it does. That statement is used as a response to misinformed copyright advocates who claim that it is theft (despite the Supreme Court finding that it isn't). Surely you've seen arguments like "Why would you download music? You wouldn't steal a CD off the shelf, would you? It's the same thing!"

Well, no, it isn't the same thing, and it's quite reasonable for someone to have moral objections to actual theft but not to illicit copying.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[ShieldW0lf]

The RIAA and the MPAA collectively make a lot of money, but that's just a drop in the bucket. The amount of money they make amounts to something like 2% of the GDP. Think about that. 2% of all the money out there comes from RIAA/MPAA earnings.

Now add in the theft that comes from p2p file sharing. Even the most conservative estimates place the value of the media being stolen by these pirates at something in the order of 800% of that being sold. That's 16% of our GDP being stolen by these pirates each year.

Now we need to add in all the theft that goes on with copying cds. We've just recently discovered that it's an order of magnitude worse than the p2p file sharing... I'm talking 8000% of the value of that actually sold. That's 160% of our GDP being stolen and never making it into the economy!

Now lets do the math. 2% that's actually being sold, plus the 16% being stolen on p2p networks, plus the 160% being stolen by cd pirates, plus the other 98% (drugs and cars and oil and stuff. That works out to 276%!!!

This means that if we can put a stop to all this piracy, our GDP will damn near triple! That will trickle down and we'll all be rich!

It's all on account of those bastard pirates that we're all always broke! Dob them in!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[SuperIceBoy]

But shouldn't the RIAA be allowed to sell their product for what ever price they want. Whether thet are charging $5 per cd or $100 per cd, it still doesn't change the legallity of duplication.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[RFC959]

In Canada, there is such a levy; see http://www.ccfda.ca/index_eng.html. I keep hearing that there's something similar in the US, but I've seen no proof. The whole music industry is disgustingly corrupt even without that, though. See "Some of Your Friends are Already This Fucked" and "Webcasting Legally". Choice quote:

So, when you want to perform music, you pay all three of these organizations. [ASCAP, BMI, SESAC] Rather than asking you which particular songs you're playing, they just charge you a blanket rate for access to their entire catalog; and then they make their own decision on how much of your money to pass along to the various copyright holders. They do this statistically, by looking at the popular music charts: rather than paying the particular artists you've played, they just assume that almost all of your money should go to the most popular stars.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[robertjw]

This is probably what the RIAA is looking to do, shut down people who *sell* illegal CDs, not people who simply make a backup copy for their friend and such.

Seems like that's what they should have been doing all along. Go after they vendors in flea markets or on the street corners that SELL pirated copies. These people are directly profiting off of illegitemate copies, plus by targeting sellers or illegal copies you don't alienate your customer base.

I think it's more likely that the RIAA is thinking it can get recordable media outlawed, but I can't see that happening.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Matilda the Hun]

Honestly, I think that their DRM consists of putting that FBI warning on the case--and that hardly stops people from copying movies. Seriously, how would they do it? To prevent people from ripping a CD in Winamp or Grip would be to prevent them from playing it in the first place. The only thing you can't do is drag and drop music from a CD, if you consider that "DRM".

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[bloo9298]

Do you have a reference for the widespread copyright "infringement" in the US? I have heard the same comment from other sources, but have not found a good reference yet.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Zeromous]

It would make sense to put values ahead of shopping if he had an agenda to end slave labour and didn't need to shop. Or if he was not considered "working poor" and had no choice but to stop consuming things made out of plastic, textiles or processed food.

You point out yourself this is not practical.

However, putting your values ahead of entertainment is - we are being ripped off, and it is perfectly practical to not buy luxury items in protest.

Yes all are evil, but its also not wise to bite the hand that feeds...

Sorry just my two cents.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.

But what you can do is to give your friend your book and she makes a copy of it for her own use. Completely legal.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[AthenianGadfly]

"... doesn't matter, you still can't legally copy them and distribute them."

Actually, as far as copying goes, you can legally make a backup copy under fair use - for just such an instance (the original media is lost or damaged). While you certainly can't go in for wholesale distribution of copies, if memory serves fair use also covers lending media to a friend.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Tape: If demand is low, the price will be low.

CD: If the demand is high, the price will be high.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[joesgarbage]

i think i will trust people who have actually done it over hyperbole and conjecture: http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html and bear in mind the prices in their essay are mid-nineties prices. please disseminate at will.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Ira_Gaines]

If more artists released albums with more than two good songs on it, I would value music more and buy more. Back in the 70s and 80s, artists released albums that were good from start to finish. If the music industry puts out albums with disposable crap on them then people will value it as such.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

"but I'm going to assert "complete and utter bullshit,"

Out of line.

"(For example, "The Very Best of Kenny Rogers" on Amazon: $5.95 on tape versus $9.95 on CD). Based on what I've seen, margins on CDs must top 50% -- unless record companies take a significant loss on cassettes."

Yeah, my guess is that the cassette version has been price protected (that is, the record company issued a credit to Amazon to help them sell it down). Not a huge demand for Kenny Rogers cassettes any more. Price protections are likely built into the margin model for record companies; the 20% guesstimate accounts for price protections. The record companies may very well be taking a bath on unsellable cassette inventory, but they make it back on the platinum-selling CDs. The recording industry is a speculative market and the 20% net margin estimate is an end-of-year average, but not typical per-piece net margin, if you know what I mean. You're probably correct that the big-selling CDs might net 50%, but those sales help pay for a lot of failures.

In case you're curious, Amazon makes about 12 - 15 points per sale and disti take about five points, so the net sell-in price (after price protection) was about $4.85. I'd count about $2.00 in royalties for Kenny and crew (he does a lot of covers and doesn't write a lot of his own stuff, so I'm sure there's a lot of mechanicals and compulsories in there) and maybe another buck for shipping and miscellaneous overhead (record company employees do not work for free). So, if the cassette cost them two bucks to make, you're correct that they're taking a loss after the price protection -- hence the sub-20% net margin even while they may make > 50% on some CDs.

FWIW, similar things happen in the computer industry. I manage a line of peripherals that everybody reading this has heard of (and might even own) and my net margins range from 5% to 50%. The average net margin from my brand is somewhere in the middle.

I hope this helps.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not so much the cost of the Albums it's the content, very few albums have quality tracks throughout, they are generally 1 or 2 good tracks and a bunch of crap fillers. This is whi I personally object to paying $30AU Dollars for a CD.

When I buy a lettuce at the supermarket, I get a lettuce for a buck. I am not forced to pay 10 bucks and take 9 onions with the lettuce.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[StreetChip]

You underestimate the power of campaign contributions.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[mrchaotica]

Actually, I think in most cases it's that c) he's intentionally trying to make copyright infringment sound worse than it is by using emotional language. He has no interest in discussing the problem rationally, but wants to trick and deceive everyone into accepting his argument. He most likely does this either to further his own selfish ends, or because he's already been brainwashed into actually believing it.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Cadallin]

And then there are the others, who fill their computers with music which SHOULD be out of copyright by now, Music more than 30+ years old should be in the public domain. PERIOD. Corporations have violated the social contract by bribing legislators to unlawfully extend copyright into perpuity. Therefore, it is simple civil disobediance to refuse to pay.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[wuice]

While I agree more or less with your assessment (some companies are more socially responsible than others, I doubt any of the people flagging against the RIAA bother to compare), I would say that it knocks some of the preachy moral high ground out of grandparent's sermonizing.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[gpw213]

In Canada, there is such a levy; see http://www.ccfda.ca/index_eng.html. I keep hearing that there's something similar in the US, but I've seen no proof.

In the US, a stand-alone CD recorder (with audio inputs that you hook into your stereo), will only use "Music" CDs, not normal "computer" CDs. These music CDs are more expensive than the computer ones, since they are only used for music recordings and carry a levy.

Most people aren't familiar with this, as most people never use such a device. Recording audio CDs on a computer is far more flexible.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[mrchaotica]

If that's your goal, buying music from iTunes is worse! At least with CDs part of the cost is legitimate manufacturing cost (even if it is a tiny amount). With iTunes, on the other hand, the RIAA's entire cut is pure unearned and undeserved profit.

The way I see it, the best course of action is just to get the song from p2p or a friend (i.e., infringe its copyright) and then send the artist some cash and a letter telling him about how you want to support him but not the RIAA.

(No, I haven't actually tried this yet.)

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Shaklee39]

It isn't stolen if they weren't going to buy it in the first place.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even my 3 year old knows that you only hold a CD by the edge."

If I were you, I'd get one of those DNA test kits. Apparently the kid is better mannered and smarter than his "father".

If you catch my drift.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Jon_A_Mnemonic]

Copyright is just law that protects a creator's ability to make a living creating. I'm not sure abolishing that would be a sociologically good thing. The average creator (say, a low-to-mid-level writer, writes good stuff, but not great, has a small audience, never hits any top 10 lists) makes maybe 40k or 50k a year. You take that 40k or 50k away and he's not just giving up a new gold-plated pool every third year, he gives up eating, and living with a roof over his head, and paying his children's tuition, and medical care, and insurance. These people in this tier, who are *by far* the majority of creative people, without being able to sell their creative works then get other jobs. Heck, flipping burgers at Mickey D's at least pays a guaranteed check. Would some people keep creating, for free? Sure, absolutely. Not nearly as many though because for the common man (and most creators *are* 'the common man'), paying the bills is important, and if Job A can't do that but Job B can, they do Job B. You'd still have amateurs producing okay stuff, and you'd occasionally have the mega-genius in his creative field come along, but the everyday workmen (who produce the bulk of all music and writing), without copyrights and laws to protect their income, would disappear. I've said this before. A common counter-argument is that in earlier times, people still created stuff without copyright. Which is true. But take any century prior to copyrights and compare it to any century since copyrights, and the amount of creative works that appeared are miniscule in comparison. Plato, Aristotle, they had rich benefactors. Michaelangelo, he got paid for his work, and royally well too. But how many of the 'common man' creators were there in the 15th or 16th centuries? Not many. Very few in fact. The few creators there were in earlier times, say the 16th century and prior, had wealthy patrons, were wealthy themselves, were recognized masters in their field, or lived in abject poverty and were recognized for their work posthumously. Is that what we want to go back to? A life with perhaps 5 percent of the creative works produced each year compared to what is produced each year now? Personally, I want a creatively rich world, where creating artistic works of any type is a valued human endeavor. Valued in the sense that those who can do it, and do do it are able to make a decent living. I'd rather have 10,000 creative works which cost money, among which are 20 true creative jewels than only 1 jewel -- even if that 1 jewel of creativity is free. On the other hand, because we *have* valued creativity, and have done so for some time now, I suppose it's possible that we will reach a point where there is simply 'enough' available content, and as a whole the human race will stop caring about (e.g. valuing) NEW creative content. When that happens, then yes, it will be very close to time to abolish copyright laws and protections. Nothing says the human race isn't ultimately destined for creative stagnation. Perhaps we are.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[goldspider]

"and the other side wants the same "fair use" rights they've had all along."

Where in fair use rights is permission to make unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works?

Fair use is fine and dandy. Copyright infringement is not.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[natet]

Ok, perhaps you haven't ever even looked at iTunes. First, at a buck a track, it is cheaper to purchase an entire album from iTunes. The average number of tracks on a cd is 8-12. At $15 per cd, which is what new albums go for these days, $1 per track is less than what the cost per track is for a purchased cd. Second, you can purchase the entire album on iTunes for $10. That is a $5 savings over buying the CD. Third, on a given album, there is usually only 1-3 songs that you are actually interested in listening to, so in that case, you are out only $3, which is a $12 savings over buying the CD. Fourth, using standard equipment (read: not for audiophiles) it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed music. Fifth, it is possible to convert from AAC to mp3 or ogg. I do it all the time, which allows me to choose which hardware or software I want to use.

You've got me on the last two, but since I have never borrowed or lent a CD, and I have never sold one of my older CD's, neither of those is worth the extra cost to me.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[song-of-the-pogo]

DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA. It is only increasing their finances which are used to back legislation and smear campaigns to further erode fair-use rights.

RIAA Radar can help you find RIAA-free music.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight....in order to protest against a single organisations bad behaviour we now have to all become radical anti-corporate activists and boycott every single corporation that has ever abused...well, anything? The world's not that black and white son. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to refuse to buy a companys products if they feel that company is giving them a raw deal.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Maxo-Texas]

Why does it cost $28 dollars for songs that would have been out of copyright if the laws had not been changed after the music was created to extend the copyright on them?

The costs of making that music were realised 30 years ago. Everything since then over the cost of the media is pure profit for someone- it may be the store, it may be the shipper, some of it is certainly the corporation- but most of the artists are dying or dead at this point.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[deesine]

How are the musicians getting paid? Are they doing this project on spec? For $5,000 they'd have to be. That amount barely gets you recording time and a so-so engineer.

GP has it right. Projects with any momentum take at least 10K units sold to come close to breaking even.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[chefmonkey]

That's correct. It doesn't do anything to dispel the prospect that net revenues on CDs are pretty high.

Even if the record companies are selling cassettes at cost (and that would be ridiculous), then the profit on a CD must be at least (price of CD - price of casette). That amount has historically been rather large -- in the 30% to 50% range -- as a percentage of purchase price.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

"I am not arguing that piracy is ok. But compared to actually stealing something? It's not the same thing. It's even worse when you call it 'piracy', because piracy is a much worse crime still."

Copyright infringement and piracy are synonymous. I think you may be confused by the fact that piracy has multiple meanings, as do the word "bark" and "desert". The meaning to which we are referring is (per "dict piracy" in your Firefox address bar):

The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

e.g. we're not talking about running a pirate radio station or taking things from boats. I infer from the .cx in your domain that you're not a native English speaker, so the confusion is understandable.

An interesting bit of trivia is that the use of the word "piracy" to describe unauthorized copying goes back some four hundred years; if that's not older than the word "copyright," then it's at least older than copyright law as we know it.

I hope this helps.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[dajak]

What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.

What I want to be able to do is make a copy of a CD, use the copy in my car, and keep the original at home.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

"Oh my god! The jewel case and paper insert must cost like $10 each to produce. It's a wonder that the RIAA makes any money. The royalties? I believe it's like $2 per CD."

That sounds about right for the royalties. I think the BOM cost for a CD is another two bucks. Keep in mind that record labels sell the CDs into the disti channel for about $8 - $10; anything above that goes to the distis and retailers, who have their own overhead.

The difference between gross margin and net margin is a real bitch. See my earlier post for some other examples of how the gross margin is whittled down. The examples I gave apply to any restail industry, not just music.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

"Actually, duplicating some of a CD or cassette tape for a friend or family member has long been accepted as fair-use - ie not requiring authorization from the copyright holder."

That's a popular myth. I used to think so, too, until I did some research. Unfortunately, fair use doctrine doesn't give you much leeway with music beyond listening to it in your private home, or content- or space-shifting for your personal use.

Luckily, such between-friends copying tends to be well under the radar of most copyright holders, so it's one of those tree-falls-in-the-forest things. It's when one puts a track in one's P2P share directory for thousands of "friends" on the Internet that copyright holders tend to take notice.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[chefmonkey]

Yeah, my guess is that the cassette version has been price protected (that is, the record company issued a credit to Amazon to help them sell it down). Not a huge demand for Kenny Rogers cassettes any more.

My other example was far more relevant: children's music -- even new and popular chidren's music -- is still largely available on cassette tapes (c.f. http://www.thewigglesshop.com/index.php?cPath=33). Tapes are still marketed at significantly lower costs than CDs not because they're cheaper to make (quite the opposite) but because that's what people are used to.

My point here is that it's not just old stock causing this disparity. Cassettes are actively being produced and sold at lower cost than CDs -- and only the most steadfast idiot would continue to do so if it required losing money. Assuming that record companies aren't actively trying to lose money, the only conclusion one can possibly draw is that record companies are perfectly capable of chopping 20% to 40% off the price of CDs while still turning a profit.

I don't doubt that you understand the economic realities of the industry that you work in; however, I think you're making some erroneous extrapolations from equipment manufacture and distribution into the Alice-in-Wonderlandesque world of music production.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[stor]

It's not, as you pointed out. You can give your friend your book, and you can give your friend your CD. What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

In Australia you're not allowed to make personal backups of other's copyrighted audio. I break the law every single day because I'm tired of my CDs being ruined in my car. One day I'll buy an mp3 player for the car: that will be a godsend for me. It will be illegal for me to use it though I guess.

Sydney Morning Herald Article on Fair Use

Cheers
Stor

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[mspohr]

Actually, fair use allows you to share your books and CDs with others and keep a copy for yourself. The RIAA has been trying to deny and destroy fair use. They've been successful in hounding people into submission and have never had a court test of this since they know they would loose.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Schemat1c]

The true cause is that the *AA's aren't producing quality material. It's all formulaic garbage. Most of the material they are protecting has already been produced and it was from a much more creative and open time. My daughter is 14 and most of what she and her friends listen to are music like Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, etc. The crap they try to shove down teenagers(their largest market) throats isn't working anymore.

I think as new talent arrives we are going to see more and more being produced by the artists themselves. The tools and distribution channels already exist, we just need artists to realize this. I think once these trends shift we will see the sudden end to this already dying beast.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[It'sYerMam]

Unfortunately, the whole premise of purchasing something is that if you don't cough up, you don't get whatever it is - it doesn't matter whether it's a book or some music. If you go into a bookstore and steal a random book that you don't like, then it's still stealing.

There is a difference in that there's no physical copy being stolen, but you are essentially arguing for a moneyless society.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[pla]

Where in fair use rights is permission to make unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works?

Most of the idea of "fair use" centers around making "Unauthorized" copies - What else would you apply it to?

Copies for backups.

Copies for format-shifting (CD to tape, CD to MP3, now we even need CD to CD to remove the DRM that makes it not play in my car's CD player).

Copies for time-shifting (the primary, and court-upheld, purpose of the entirely legal VCR).

Copies for friends? That seems to land squarely on the boundary between okay and not okay.

Short of absurdly abusing one of the above "rights", the RIAA would have a hell of a time convincing even the current batch of corporate-friendly courts that making a copy of a CD deliberately-broken-from-the-factory so the owner can play it their car somehow violates copyright to a punishable degree.

We only unarguably cross the classic hard-line test for fair use when the copier starts selling the copies.


Interestingly enough, the whole P2P situation has arisen because it fills a niche between what I describe above as "absurdly abusing" fair use, and commercial copying... The sharer doesn't (usually) profit from the copying, but can manage to give away enough copies that it could potentially undermine the market for the real product (For both our sakes, I'll entirely skip the idea of whether P2P actually helps or hurts sales).


Fair use is fine and dandy. Copyright infringement is not.

No insult intended here, but you've just quoted RIAA doublespeak, for the reason given in my very first sentence of this post - Fair use means nothing less than permissible copyright infringement.

Sadly, in another 50 years, saying that might not even make sense to most people. But if you stop to consider why we have copyrights in the first place - A limited monopoly to reward the creator of a work - You'll immediately see why even so egregious an act as copying an entire CD for a friend doesn't violate the spirit of copyright. The creator still has his monopoly (or whatever cut therefrom he has managed to negotiate), and has lost at most one sale (but has not incurred a real physical "loss" as a result, only the potential non-attainment of a potential gain). It only even starts makes sense to consider small-scale personal copying "bad" when viewed from the perspective of a huge infrastructure designed to extract maximum profits from the creative process.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[R3d M3rcury]

"Actually, duplicating some of a CD or cassette tape for a friend or family member has long been accepted as fair-use - ie not requiring authorization from the copyright holder."

Actually, to the best part of my knowledge, duplicating some of a CD or cassette tape has never been accepted as fair use. However, this kind of copying is pretty much impossible for the RIAA to catch, so it was "safe" to do so.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

He does not buy from taper-friendly RIAA artists, seems consistent to me...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[mOdQuArK!]

In fact, England pretty much forced us to incorporate copyright laws because books were being duplicated in America and sold without giving any royalties to the author/publisher.

England didn't force us to do squat. Copyright laws were incorporated because 1) the founders thought that they _might_ encourage innovation (and I suspect they would have changed their mind if they saw the current corrupted mess related to IP), and 2) because some people thought they could make money easier if they had some laws on their side to create artificial scarcity.

One of the reasons that America got so powerful so fast is because it pretty much stole most of Europe's industrial-age "intellectual property". It's a typical pattern that the successful (both countries & individuals) will try and place artificial barriers to those entities who they consider potential competitors. Those developing countries that ignore attempts to restrain their innovation (or pay only lip service to IP, like China), will eventually catch up to & replace those societies who have allowed IP laws to make their idea-marketplace stagnant.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a joke, you fucking nimrod.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[millennial]

There's a guy that goes around to small family-owned businesses in my area. He sells DVDs of still-in-theater movies for $5 a pop. Nobody reports it, because nobody really cares. They just want their movies. Regardless, I think he's a scumbag. Download your movies all you want, but by God, if you want to SELL your illegal junk, you deserve to be punished.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[kitzilla]

> DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA

Actually, this is realistic advice.

It requires *we* change, however: seeking out the best Indie music, promoting it, listening to it, supporting the artists, and developing our tastes beyond the ,ainline music industry.

You know, there's a lot of great Indie music out there. I'm going to begin exploring some Indie artists and posting their music -- with permission -- to my weblog next month.

Let's get after it. As the Joker said, "Let's expand our minds."

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[bigberk]

It's not that simple, you have to weigh several things here. Wal Mart provides employment for hundreds of thousands of employees and brings low cost products that my family uses. The spinoffs from their enterprise creates millions more jobs.

As for big label music, they directly threaten my livelihood (by lobbying governments to pass laws that stifle innovation), they don't offer me, my family, or community anything of value, so comparing Wal Mart to the RIAA is comparing apples to oranges.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[qw(name)]

The founding of copyright laws had nothing to do with the founders of this country. In fact, the US Copyright Act wasn't written into law until 1891. Until that time American publishers (as well as foreign countries not part of the Berne Convention) were pretty much free to do as they wanted, especially with foreign works.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Technician]

It seems to me like the RIAA is stabbing blindly in the dark.

I don't think they will be happy until computers come with a read only hard drive. After all most stuff is simply tucked on a hard drive to be played by Winamp.

I know I rip all my CD's to the hard drive and put the originals away for safekeeping. Then I burn mixes for the car. Oops.. Does that mean I'm a pirate? I now have two copies on recordable media.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[DavidTC]

Despite what you and everyone else apparent think, that legally isn't theft. To commit theft you have to intend to deprive someone of their property. Which does not happen if you intend to return it before they could notice it missing.

So, despite what your parents told you, borrowing without permission isn't theft.

Of course, that's a damn stupid example, as no jury would ever believe it. And merely breaking into someone else's car and starting it is usually illegal.

Now, there are few limited circumstances where, legally, you can get away with arguing you intended to return it. (And you can't ever do it if you 'use up' the thing.)

Usually it works best when it's something you physically couldn't steal but merely move a little, or something that, under no circumstances, could you expect to get away with stealing.

But it can happen. Imagine an island in the middle of a small lake. There is a boat tied up, so you take it to the island. Sadly, while the island was public, the boat was not. And the owner tries to have you arrested for theft.

Can he? No. You rather obviously intent to bring the boat back...it's not like you could go anywhere else. (Assuming you have no boat trailer.) You did not intend to deprive him of his property.

Regardless of the problem that it's near impossible to demonstrate 'intent to return' in court, if you didn't intent to deprive the owner of it, it's legally not theft.

In fact, there is an even more obvious example of this, and, hey, I'll use cars. If someone loans me his car, and I drive off intending not to return it, I have just committed car theft at that moment. Likewise, if I drive off intending to return it, but, say, have a heart attack at the store and end up in the hospital for a week, I have not committed car theft. (And if I total it, I have not committed theft by conversion.)

So it's not even the actual returning that has anything to do with anything. It's merely intent.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[True Grit]

This is probably what the RIAA is looking to do

They aren't going to stop there though. The RIAA and Co. consider the Constitution's Fair Use provisions to be their Public Enemy #1. When you listen to **IA execs talking about "if it breaks, you should buy another one from us" speech, that is in direct contradiction to Fair Use which explicitly allows a copy to avoid breakage.

In fact, part of the DMCA is technically in contradiction with Fair Use, as the DMCA says its illegal to circumvent copy-protection, even if it is to create a legal backup copy as Fair Use allows.

I'm certainly no fan of commercial thieves, and I don't download music illegally, but mark my word folks, the RIAA will not stop with the theives and the P2P's, their idea of a nirvana *requires* the destruction or neutralization of the Fair Use provisions of the Copyright Amendment. Like all obsolete industries in the past, they will desperately try to keep their high-return industry going for as long as they can, and like many of those past obsolete industries, they're going to try to buy a rejuvenated monopoly with the help of the government (read: buying Congressional representatives).

If they get their way, you will have to come to them when the CDs wear out because you won't legally be allowed to make copies, and I got a buck that says as soon as this happens, the quality (read: longevity) of CDs will mysteriously decline throughout the industry.....

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that all the library CDs I ever borrowed were full of scratches. Video store DVDs are almost as bad.

Despite the apparent axiom that a 3-year old can understand to handle a CD by the edge only, it's a fact that CDs and DVDs get wear and tear in real life. They get dropped and scratched - sometimes just taking them out of their case can scratch them - and they develop errors.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[DavidTC]

And let me clarify before people wig out.

You CANNOT get away with this in court unless you are damn lucky. I'm not saying 'Yeah, no one gets arrested for joyriding'. People clearly do. (And joyriding is more 'uncaring about depriving' than 'failing to intend to deprive'.)

However, there have been a few, very rare cases, where people do indeed gotten away with 'theft' because it was quite obviously borrowing. Like moving neighbor's lawn ornaments into their yard to complete a Christmas scene. That would just be a damn stupid thing to do if you weren't planning on giving them back.

Actually, there's a very very very obvious example of this that happens all the time...accidental taking. If I drive away with my friend's briefcase in the backseat, I rather obviously wasn't intending to 'deprive' him of anything.

However, that's a harder point to make, as all crimes require 'intent'...theft requires 'intent to deprive', instead of 'intent to take without permission', as some people think, but that example doesn't prove it.

And just in case you people think I'm crazy. Look at this. Scroll down to the bottom, Company Rule 5.

A Pepsi employee destroyed his own handtruck, borrowed (without permission) a handtruck of someone's, and got fired for it. The case is over his firing, not the 'theft' he wasn't charged for, but Pepsi fired him for the 'theft', and his lawyer argued it wasn't theft, as under no circumstances could he have been intending to keep the handtruck as a replacement for his (It was the wrong color), and in fact returned it himself, and turned in his broken one at the end of the day.

And he got his job back! Admittedly, this was an arbitration over a firing and not a criminal charge, but the arbitrator seems to accept the concept that it was not 'theft'. While theft may be permissionable grounds to fire someone in the Pepsi union, borrowing is apparently not.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[mOdQuArK!]

The founding of copyright laws had nothing to do with the founders of this country.

I was thinking of the "intellectual property" clause of the Constitution. The founders definitely put that in there, although many of them had strong reservations about allowing peoples' personal rights to be violated to such an extent.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[DavidTC]

Right, and those CDs are legal for you to record music to and give out to others without any payment. This is from the era of DATs, when the RIAA basically destroyed the market, but the laws are still in place.

And I hilariously suspect the music tax is based on the concept you'll copy one CD onto one CD. Instead of, oh, filling them up with MP3s. So I suspect we're only paying about 1/15th of the tax we should be. But, hey, the law doesn't specify a format to use.

Anyway, for people who download MP3s, get a 50 pack of these. Burn your MP3s to them. Delete them from your computer. Hand them to someone. Have them hand them back to you. (If you want to be nice, make two copies, let them keep one.) Copy them off the CDs. Stick the CDs deep in your closet.

Magic legal MP3s.

The next time someone rants and raves about the evils of downloading MP3s, stand secure in the knowledge your MP3s are legal, because you got them via a perfectly legal means.

Yes, seriously. Perfectly legal. There is nothing in the law about where the copies come from, it is the act of copying that is legal or not. Copying MP3s onto a music CD to give to a friend is completely legal, even if the MP3s were obtained illegally. And getting the CD back is legal regardless if they have no copies of it.

Not that they can actually get you for downloading MP3s, but it's the principle of the thing.

At that point, about the only way you might even be vaguely in violation of the law is because you copied them from CD to your computer. But the courts are pretty okay with format shifting.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

As if the Coke and automobile ads and $5.00 popcorns and $4.50 actual Cokes aren't irritating enough...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[DavidTC]

That's why I download Beatles' music.

What? Are they going to release more if I buy it?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Prohibition was people trying to control things that did not belong to them: beer, and other peoples' bodies.

Because of this, the laws were not moral.

Laws against filesharing are trying to protect against people trying to control things that are not theirs: music.

Because of this, the laws are moral.

"But I want it!" is not sufficient moral reason to alter the laws to allow you to take that which is not yours.

"But they'll earn more money this way!" Let's suppose this is true, but doubtful. It's their decision to make, bad as you might suggest it is.

"But they're ripping people off!" Compared to what? That's how the free market works. You know, the free market that brings you $300 PCs that would kick the ass of a top end PC from 3 years ago?

And it's not like a loaf of bread to a starving man. Music is a luxury in that respect.

The price of 1 1/3 movie tickets gives you a CD you can use, and make copies of for yourself doesn't sound like too bad a deal to me. Some big "ripoff" that is!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[tombeard]

Thanks!
First rational explination I've ever heard.
I vote we junk IP as a failed experiment.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[RedWizzard]

CD -> Sharp implement
Book -> Hot implement, wet implement

If I lend a CD to a friend I do so with the implicit, unstated assurance that if they lose or damage it, they will buy me a new one.

It's not hard to keep hot and wet away from books. It is hard to keep sharp away from CDs. Any small particle of metal, glass, rock, etc may be sharp enough. It's also a lot harder to detect damage on DVDs in particular. CDs are usually ok if there's no visible damage, but that's not the case with DVDs (or magnetic tapes). That means you may not know your media has been damaged until well after it's been returned to you. When you lend a CD to a friend and then find it scratched 6 months down the track, so you go after your friend for a replacement?

OTOH, books are very easy to check for damage.

Libraries lend out original copies of books, and CDs, and DVDs, and other media. They don't seem to require special procedures due to the nature of the media.

Libraries are publically funded. That makes them big juicy targets for lawsuits. Besides, in long run the only people who lose from damaged library media are the users so the libraries aren't as concerned. Finally, as others have mentioned, libraries have stronger recourse to get compensation than I do.

I'd also point out that I no longer rent DVDs due to the large number of problems I've had with damaged ones.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[glasse]

The 1971 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary cites the first use of "piracy" to mean "copyright infringement" in 1771, by a man named Luckombe, to wit: "They...would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition." The word "pirate", used to mean "someone who infringes copyright", is first cited in 1668, by a J. Hancock: "Some dishonest Book-sellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practice to steal Impressions of other mens Copies." 400 years is a stretch, but even 350 years is a lot longer than I expected. Thanks for that!

I do not refer to copyright infringement as "theft" because it distorts the real consequences of the crime. The word "piracy", to a lesser extent, invokes the same feelings of "loss of property" that really don't apply when you're talking about copyright infringement. In order to defend fair use, I feel the need to use unemotional language to make clear the things the *AA are really defending themselves against -- among which theft cannot be found. Yes, it's a crime, and yes, it may be immoral, but no, it is not theft.

Ethan

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

The middle ground is that the RIAA stops trying to screw us and charges reasonable prices for their music.

I buy all my music from allofmp3.com because the price is right, they have a big selection, and they don't try to screw me around. I have paid more for music in the last 2 months (to allofmp3) than I paid in the preceding 2 years.

I'm not interested in engaging in "piracy", if you define piracy as non-authorised selling of music. However I do like to share good music/movies with my friends for free and I don't see why I should stop. The incremental cost of a CD or DVD copy is almost zero. Sure the artists (even the labels) need to recoup their costs - but the stuff I like is old enough to have recouped its cost already. I mean, some of the artists are dead and others live in mansions. They won't miss the lack of revenue which they wouldn't receive anyway.

The RIAA however is not content to see their business model become obsolete. They're attacking every factor which influences their business model: the recording media, the ease of digital reproduction, the ease of digital distribution, the ease of getting the content onto a computer, the Creative Commons which establishes a route for licensing of content which does not require the RIAA as a middleman. They're lobbying Congress for draconian new laws.

And that pisses me off.

It pisses me off to the extent that I want to do something to fight these bastards. I'm already withholding my $$ (mostly). Should I be talking to my congressman? Or donating money to the EFF? Or engage in civil disobedience by leaving CDs full of good music in bus shelters?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[failure-man]

I'm in the same group as you for the most part. I have bought the occasional RIAA album, but I got them used to avoid touching their bottom line. (I do need my Devo and Oingo Boingo . . . . . . )

For indie labels I've found eMusic to be a great deal. Cheaper than iTunes and shipped as un-DRMed MP3. (Which I don't throw onto P2P systems. Partially because I don't know if it's watermarked or not, but mostly because I'll happily return a fair deal with fair compensation.) You may want to check that out.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[RedWizzard]

Copyright infringement and piracy are synonymous. I think you may be confused by the fact that piracy has multiple meanings, as do the word "bark" and "desert".

You're right, of course, but I think it's worth noting that this meaning for piracy came about because content owners wanted to associate copyright infringement with a much more serious crime. Now the nautical crime of piracy is rare so it's lost it's emotive effect and the same content owners are trying to conflate copyright infringement with theft and stealing. What next? Would you be so acquiescent if they start to call copyright infringement rape?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[steve_bryan]

Even my 3 year old knows that you only hold a CD by the edge. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?

Do you think that jack ass piece of advice is actually useful? CD's fail because of inherent design defects. They could have been delivered like MiniDiscs and the more recent UMDs to minimize normal day to day wear but they chose an exposed design leaving it to the purchaser to take measures needed to protect his purchase. That is precisely what I do when I rip my CD to my hard drive. It has nothing to do with careless handling which you so pompously imply.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Bulllllllll Shit.

Reference please.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[steve_bryan]

I suppose your experience may be different from mine when it comes to optical storage versus paper. The small possible defects that seem most likely result in a change to a book which just doesn't matter to me while an error in a CD or DVD that impedes playback just about ruins the experience. One of the first DVD's I purchased was The Matrix which I found fairly entertaining. Not long ago I put it in my current DVD player and found that after a certain point it just stopped playing. Nothing visible on the disc and it had always been carefully treated and stored. It just stopped working. I've not had the end of a book disappear on me.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[vettemph]

Sir,

1 song from iTunes. ($0.99)
19 from gnutella. ($0)
~1 dollar / 20 songs

Maybe you should not get so caught up in your attitude problem.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[fwarren]

It is not that copyright infrgement isn't theft. It is how you quantify it's value.

If I have a bakery, and you steal 10 loaves of bread. I have been harmed. I no longer have 10 loaves to sell, and I am out my costs for making those loaves.

The law only lets me "dip" once on that, I am only out what they could be sold for, not Twice as much, because I lost 10 loaves, and the people who got the 10 "pirate" loaves, did not come buy them from me so I have been harmed by "20 loaves".

In reality, there is no way to know that I lost 10 sales. A loaf could have been given to someone who was broke, or leaving town. Or someone who loved it can came and purchaed 20 loaves. We just don't play the "what if" game.

The situation with copyright infrgment, as relating to p2p or mp3 downloads is closer to the "I lost 10 people not comming to buy my bread" than to the "someone stole 10 loaves from me" argument.

Are they "harmed"??? Sometimes. Sometimes a download will cost them a sale, or several sales. Sometimes, it nets them a lot of money. I.E. 1 song downloaded causes someone to purchase several albums.

I think plenty of folks either dont care becauuse they can get it for free without getting caught, or that they are doing no harm, because they did not take a "physical" copy. There are only those out there among the geeky elite that feel justifed because "copyright infringment" is probably not costing the RIAA anything.

In reality, right now piracy acts as a "tax". The more popular your "intelectual proptery" is, the more it is being downloaded and costing you in real sales. That would be for the top 5% of the hottest selling items.

If all you have is a back catalog, every download is more likley to sell an album than to cost a sale. As evidenced by artists who sell from their website. As their songs appear on p2p networks, their sales on their site goes up.

Which bring us to the truth of this. Follow the money....

The current situation is p2p has probably increased sales more than it cost. Some new album sales go down, but the record companies don't make their real money there any more. Back catalog sales are up, and that is their real cash cow.

Now imagine a future, without controls, without you (RIAA). A world where the next Beatles sell their songs directly, via their site, bittorrent, p2p networks or something and do not go thru a major label.

Now imagine some record company exec thinking about every day, 25 or 30 years of back catalog mateiral outselling the current number 1 hit, and they are entitled to "none" of that money, because they group never signed a contract with a major lable.

The noise about p2p is about securing the future, making sure the next Beatles has to go thru the record compnay, instead of having access to their audience via p2p.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shmlco]

Stealing and theft are general terms in the common venacular, and have a multitude of meanings and shadings and usages that clearly apply. The Dictionary (OED) agrees...

"steal 1a. To take away dishonestly (portable property, cattle, etc., belonging to another); esp. to do this secretly or unobserved by the owner or the person in charge. ... d. In wider sense: To take or appropriate dishonestly (anything belonging to another, whether material or immaterial)."

Or from dictionary.com: Theft: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."

And since you'd probably argue "take", again, from the OED: take V. 30 To get, obtain, or derive by one's own act from some source (something material or non-material); to adopt, copy, 'borrow'.

Also, the oft-quoted Supreme Court Dowling case gives credence to the act of copyright theft as being a form of theft, and the material involved being property.

People who actively and vocally advocate the use of the term "infringement" as an alternative every time the word "theft" is mentioned are attempting to play the propaganda game from the other side, as the connotation of infringement implies that one has done little or nothing of consequence.

Just to be clear, I'm on the side of the artists and those who would create that which we would enjoy.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[jp10558]

Well, a good question is why the police aren't rounding them up. But anyway, maybe this ought to figure in the RIAA's plans - stopping this sort of sales is likely like stopping the sale of drugs.

But they have another attack vector that the war on drugs doesn't have - a legal version. Maybe they need to get their prices down to push these people out - say to $6. Then these people would need to further drop their prices to really compete - say to $2, but at that price, are they making a profit anymore?

I mean, a CD + ink + case is getting close to $1. Then there's the time, labor and risk, is a $1 over cost enough to cover all that?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Travelsonic]

The Dictionary (OED) agrees...

Not all dictionaries however are the same, and the one I seem to follow, an apparently the one the laws are written on relies on loss of property, do it really depends on the one that you read/believe in.

People who actively and vocally advocate the use of the term "infringement" as an alternative every time the word "theft" is mentioned are attempting to play the propaganda game from the other side, as the connotation of infringement implies that one has done little or nothing of consequence.

This is nothing more than what George Carlin calls "being stunningly, and embarrassingly full of shit". It is a lie. The reason that "we" (a collective "we"?) use it is because that's what the law calls it, that is the crime commited, and not theft, and that's why theft is not considered appropriate by many (most) - because it fucking isn't!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at a library for four years - we backed up all of our CDs and DVDs, before we even put them on the shelf.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong and I am an anonymous coward. The money not being spent on CDs is being spent on other consumer goods. Perhaps it is being spent on a 60-gig ipod or a CD burner. Remember one man's disaster is another man's opportunity.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You are missing the point. HE NEVER CALLED IT THEFT. GPs basic point was that while copyright infringement is not theft, it is still illegal. GP was annoyed by all the parrots justifying copyright infringement by squacking the line "copyright infringement isn't theft" as a way to change the subject away from the fact that it is still illegal.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this sophistry get modded insightful? No, it is not okay to pirate them just because they are made in a morally repugnant fashion. What you do then is either A)go without music or B)purchase that music from companies that do not employ such practices. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Maybe if you said that intellectual property should not exist and that the act of copyright infringement is in and of itself a form of civil disobediance there would be some substance to your "argument." But if you are trying to take the moral high ground you'd better not be jamming out to the tunes in your car, as that would give people the ammunition to convince the jury/media/etc that you are doing it merely for personal gain.

Or you can be like most people who just want something free, and realize that they are doing something wrong (or at least illegal) but feel that what they get out if it is worth the slight risk of getting caught.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[glasse]

In the interests of clarity, I'm on the side of freedom. You're right, this is a propanda game, as evidenced by how we identify "our side". The reason I play this side is because it's the little guy's side. *AA can afford to put the other side on posters and billboards. In order to get our side of the propaganda heard, individuals need to do the legwork (like the sibling post).

I can understand larceny as theft, and I can understand theft-of-service as theft. The definition for steal you cite uses the word "take", but uses it in conjunction with the word "appropriate", which dictionary.com defines as "To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission." I think this is more the sense of the word "take" being used here, although this is certainly up for debate. The definition you use of "take" (#30, but in the OED this doesn't mean much) is more like "I took that bit from Beethoven's 5th". Putting the definitions you cite together, you get something like "stealing music means to borrow, adopt or copy it dishonestly", which is a little different from "copyright infringement", which is a specific violation of certain privileges granted by a certain set of statutes.

Although I never read Dowling v. United States, I took the chance to look it up now. Wikipedia says: "The Court saw it Dowling's way, saying "18 U.S.C. 2314 [transport of stolen property in interstate commerce] does not apply to this case because the rights of a copyright holder are 'different' from the rights of owners of other kinds of property." This amounted to a declaration that copyright infringement was not theft." And from findlaw: "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud." Which doesn't mean people aren't playing the propaganda game, of course.

I've posted my solution to the RIAA problem before, but I like it, so I'm going to post it again. First, get rid of all the RIAA-published music on your computer, because otherwise you're a hypocrite, as others in this thread have noted. Second, never buy a RIAA album again -- you're funding lawsuits against little guys. Third, to listen to music without committing copyright infringement, use sites like http://www.webjay.org/. You'll also have the side benefit of hearing about a bunch of great indie bands who you otherwise wouldn't have.

Ethan

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

"Cassettes are actively being produced and sold at lower cost than CDs -- and only the most steadfast idiot would continue to do so if it required losing money. Assuming that record companies aren't actively trying to lose money, the only conclusion one can possibly draw is that record companies are perfectly capable of chopping 20% to 40% off the price of CDs while still turning a profit."

Your conclusion is understandable but may not be accurate. You can play a lot of tricks with margin blending. Producing a CD and a cassette version of the same material involves a lot of shared sunk costs (production costs of the masters, advertising and promotion, and the like); by applying this to the bottom line of of the CD sales (which can be sold for more money), you can work out the numbers so that the only thing you need to pay for from the sale of the cassette version is the cost of the material and the shipping, and you get the advantage of selling it in two formats and increasing your penetration. The downside is that if you sell a CD and cassette version of the same content, your CD is burdened with a lot more of the intangibles and might make you the same or less margin even though the material costs are less and you're selling it for twice as much. That's why I've been droning on about how the difference between net and gross is a killer.

"I don't doubt that you understand the economic realities of the industry that you work in; however, I think you're making some erroneous extrapolations from equipment manufacture and distribution into the Alice-in-Wonderlandesque world of music production."

My numbers may not be accurate (I've indicated where I've made estimates) but the math, the realities, and the tricks are the same regardless of the industry. It's all widgets. And selling widgets isn't as simple as many people think (particularly here on Slashdot, where the complexity of everything except for programming computers is over-trivialized) -- that's why business schools offer post-grad degrees!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[TCM]

What you can't do is make a copy of the book, or a copy of your CD, and give that to your friend while you keep the original.

Funny. Until recently, I could just do that. Now it's forbidden if the original is copy protected. If I buy a non-protected CD today, I can share it with my friends as I want, legally.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[TCM]

Here's a nice read on the "quality" of today's mastering processes. And it's not that the sound engineers have turned incompetent. The marketroids want it louder and louder.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[TCM]

I just noticed the article is from 2002. Go figure.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Ira_Gaines]

The same thing in that article is true about the last Metallica album.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[xander2032]

Ah yes... However music isn't like food. You don't need music, and they also "give away" music for free on the radio.

A lot of people have a difficult time accpting that buying this music on CD has to cost so much!

And usually you're only paying for one or two "hit songs" and the rest of the tracks are crap. I know I stopped buying CDs because I ended up with a CD collection in which I'd have to switch CDs after two or three songs.

Bascially their product is crap and overpriced. Yet they can't seem to understand why people refuse to pay them for it? lol

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mixing up the cost of producing the music with the cost of producing the CD or cassette.

So long as the cost of a CD or cassette is more than the cost of the physical CD/cassette plus distribution, selling more will not lose money. It just may not cover the cost of producing the music in the first place.

Cassettes can be sold for less than CDs on the basis that they don't impact the sales of CDs and at a higher price very many fewer would be sold.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[viper2110]

What I still want to know is if you copy a CD from your friend, how does the RIAA know. And how does it become part of there piracy statistics ?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the nature of the media, libraries here in Finland do some kind of resurfacing of scratched CD's. I don't know the details, but that's what they said they would do, when I returned a CD and complained about the scratches that made it impossible to listen.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Baricom]

Yep. Just like that Power Mac I borrowed* from the Apple Store yesterday. Hey, I wasn't going to buy it in the first place.

* Disclaimer: I did no such thing.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[csplinter]

Actually rape would be an appropriate substitute for "piracy" or "theft" in this situation, note this entry in the websters dictionary.

Main Entry: 2rape
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): raped; raping
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rapere
1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force b : DESPOIL
2 : to commit rape on

e.g. I just got through rapeing portions of an riaa executives pork barrel... via the use of bit torrent to illegally download copyrighted music files.

p.s. thx to Roget's New Millennium(TM) Thesaurus for informing me that pork barrel is a synonym for profits.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[aka-ed]

Actually, what I think the RIAA is angling for, without actually saying so, is a piece of the sales on all recordable media as "compensation" for their ridiculously inflated estimation of lost sales.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Stauf]

I would wager that my English speaking background is as long or longer then yours.

Notice that I refered to 'copyright infringement' as 'piracy' in the phrase you quoted. Consider though, that the people you are calling pirates may have a legitimate reason to dislike the term and find it insulting. Imagine how most of the world would react if you started calling them 'gay' when they start acting cheerful.

And as soon as you can provide a reference to confirm your '400 years' theory, you may get some support for it.

The point is that throwing around emotionally loaded words like 'piracy' and 'theft' is insulting to some. And they have a legitimate point if they want you to call it 'copyright infringement'. Their raising the point is not always an excuse for piracy.

I hope this helps.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[kwoff]

These have been slow and calculated moves! They have been planning on attacking the P2P networks, getting people to switch to legally downloaded media formats (which basically eliminate distribution costs as the RIAA doesn't even pay for it), and now they want to end recordable media!

I think it also serves as a kind of publicity move. Keeping music or movies in the public attention, maintaining the impression that there are hordes of people listening to their music and watching their movies, which makes more people want to do that.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[EvilNTUser]

Anything that works for you, but CD:s just don't have the required data density. I would require over 1000 of them, and they degrade silently instead of noticeably.

Personally, I duplicate every hard drive in my workstation to a hard drive in my server, which is behind a UPS. Other precautions I have taken include running separate operating systems and making sure the backup drive isn't made by the same company.

The house could burn down, of course, but I haven't been able to find anyone willing to keep one of my computers in their closet yet.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[dago]

Why is that modded insightful ???

It is perfectly legal to make a copy of a CD or a book to give to a close friend or family member.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they have some justification for the pricing

They're having to refuel their jets instead of just throwing away the old one and buying a new one that is already full of fuel.

And they have to use the same jet more than once in a year. It's their right to have one for each day of the year.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[chefmonkey]

It's all widgets.

I think this is probably the crux of the matter: music isn't widgets. Music is licensing. The widgets are merely a relic. The real product in question here -- the music -- has a fixed overhead. Once the music exists, it exists. The music companies then need to make enough money licensing this music to recoup these fixed costs and compensate the artists. Beyond that, the incremental cost of a single music CD should be the same as the cost of a single blank CD in a jewel case with a printed four-color insert (somewhere south of $1) -- the channel by which they arrive at the local Fry's is sufficiently similar that the distribution costs and retailer overhead should be on the same order of magnitude.

Keep in mind that what we're arguing here is that the music currently being sold is overpriced; the question of "what these costs should be" is more relevant than "what these costs are." I think the overarching problem is that everyone along the chain has long ago rejected the notion that recorded music should merely be profitable, and replaced it with a sense of entitlement that it should be wildly lucrative (at least, for everyone except the artists).

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Gridpoet]

Not artists that sound like RIAA backed music, actual bands like Radiohead, the Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand, Pink Floyd, Four Tet etc

actually the reason i like Indie rock is because..THANK GOD...it doesnt sound anything like RIAA crap...

granted...there are the ocasional exceptions, ala Radiohead and Jimmy Eat World...but in a nasty generalization...the RIAA sucks

but i wont mind if you keep britney spears, justin timberlake, n'sync, back street boys, j lo, nickleback, ashlee simpson, mariah carey, kelly clarkson, matchbox 20, gwen steffani, shakira, coldplay...well you get the idea...

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Paul Carver]

I keep seeing this line parroted on Slashdot, but I don't understand it. Almost every CD I buy is enjoyable from start to finish. I may have a couple of songs that I like better than the rest, but generally I rip the entire CD, put it on my iPod and/or car MP3/CD player, and listen to the album from start to finish.

If I ever really wanted to hear only one specific song I could buy it on iTunes for $0.99, but I've never done that because pretty much all the music I like to listen to comes in the form of a CD full of music that I like.

Perhaps if you're finding that you don't like the CDs you buy, you're simply buying the wrong CDs.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[slavemowgli]

Yeah... and "nigger" is just another word for a black person.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[MyDixieWrecked]

Well, a good question is why the police aren't rounding them up... ...stopping this sort of sales is likely like stopping the sale of drugs.

It WOULD be like stopping the sales of drugs if the dealers had tables set up out in the open with crack vials of all shapes and sizes laid out and baggies with primo bud with people checking the stuff out.

This stuff isn't even being sold in the ghetto, man. This is out in the open. Midtown NYC. Chelsea, man. The cops should be all over this. If the RIAA can take 1000 IPs to court and sue each one for hundreds of thousands in damages, when they're just kids downloading stuff (and yeah, they downloaded 30GB of music and kept the stuff available to share), why don't they crack down on people who are actually profiting on this stuff. This is worse than spamming.

Also, people justify buying this stuff because they're PAYING FOR IT. They don't even think about whether the guy paid for it, or is doing it legally. They feel all fine and dandy because they're paying $ for these CDs.

There's this woman at work who exclusively buys this stuff. And she's mad because she can't MP3 the tracks on half of the CDs to stick in her iTunes library and listen at work. Copyprotected CDs that keep people from listening to their music, but don't keep people from duping and profiting off it.

What a broken system.

I mean, a CD + ink + case is getting close to $1. Then there's the time, labor and risk, is a $1 over cost enough to cover all that?

well, that's when you start having people in china, mexico, or wherever doing this crap. sweatshops, cheaper media (1 in 5 don't burn right, but they're not wasting time verifying, so whatever), computers pulled out of dumpsters instead of put together from clearance sales at newegg.

I'm pretty sure that's the direction it's going anyway.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[phlinn]

Fair use is entirely contained within the Copyright Act. The Constitution of the US only allows for the creation of a copyright and patent system, leaving all the details up to congress.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[dup_account]

Why isn't anyone following the money? If they can convince everyone that they are being hurt (let's say 5c per blank CD sold worth), then they get the the government to put a tariff on CDs, which would go straight into the RIAA companies bank accounts.

It's instant free money!

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Dun Malg]

No. You are missing the point. HE NEVER CALLED IT THEFT. GPs basic point was that while copyright infringement is not theft, it is still illegal. GP was annoyed by all the parrots justifying copyright infringement by squacking the line "copyright infringement isn't theft" as a way to change the subject away from the fact that it is still illegal.

If that's the case, then it is the GP that was missing the point. Those that say it isn't theft aren't trying to change the subject, they are explaining their justification. The fact that it's still illegal is not the issue (see argument: illegal != immoral). Nobody just comes out and announces that copyright infringement isn't theft. It always comes comes as a response to some daft comment mentioning something along the lines of "stealing songs" or "theft of copyright".

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[amliebsch]

That's not how I read the statutes, though I couldn't find any cases directly on point. Do you know of any published cases from the federal circuit or supreme courts?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[JetTredmont]

It's easy to convince a bunch of middle aged senators that those evil computer hackers are stealing the labels' music because they typically don't have the greatest understanding of computers. But I'd be surprised to find even one US senator who has never copied an album onto a tape or received a copy from a friend. They will see that recording onto CD is the same thing, and will be a lot more reluctant to try to outlaw an activity that they know people have been doing for a long time.

Okay, assuming you can find an honest congresscritter/senator combo who actually care about not being a complete hypocrite more than they do about funding the next reelection campaign, I have one word for you:

Digital

Boo! Did I scare you? Cause I can tell you, that word sure scares a hell of a lot of middle-aged+ folks in Washington. "Digital" is unknown. "Digital copies" are, obviously, not anything like analog copies. They are, of course, evil.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[tolkienfan]

The law codifies what facts are used to determine whether copyright infringement has occurred, and the extent.

One fact is the quantity of the protectable elements that is copied. So for example, if you only copy 10% of the work, you are probably safe.

Another is the commercial intent of the copy. ie if you copied it to sell versus copying to give to a friend.

Another is parody. Parody is actually allowed, again depending on the other facts (such as commerce and percentage copied)

Copyright is supposed to carefully weigh the promotion of science and the "useful arts" against the public good. Giving a monopoly for any purpose is at best a balancing act.

Copyright is now 90years in some cases, and covers all kind of activities never even considered until recently. No additional benefit to the public can possibly be demonstrated, and yet people still post comments supporting these draconian measures.

Quit supporting this crap - it only benefits a few people at the top of all the music and movie companies.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[JetTredmont]

Ah, dictionary definition showdowns. The absolute best the web has to offer!

First, "steal an idea" is common vernacular, and so from that perspective physical property need not be lost for it to be considered "stealing".

From the legal perspective, are you saying the Supreme Court doesn't know the definition of theft, or are you arguing that the grandparent is incorrect in his citation?

Regardless, theft of service or signal IS considered theft legally in the state I live in (California) AND, so far as I know, pretty much everywhere else too. Which, IMHO, pretty much leads to the incontrovertible conclusion that stealing a copy of copyrighted works is theft, just as stealing a cable signal is theft and stealing a car is theft. They're different types of theft, just like people and squirrels are different types of mammals, but they all fall under the umbrella of "theft", which is, colloquially, getting something you didn't pay for but which you should have. You'll have to consult a legal library for the full legal definition of "theft" in your state.

All of which, as was said away back when, is COMPLETELY off topic of the original issue, which is that the theft of copyrighted works is WRONG, ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and UNSUSTAINABLE.

If this little diversion tactic wasn't meant as a diversion tactic, why is it so commonly used? I don't see other topics so relentlessly and predictably degrade to what amounts to a grammar debate here on Slashdot. Granted, there are moments, but none nearly so predictable as a copyright theft case ending up as a grammar war.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shark72]

"Consider though, that the people you are calling pirates may have a legitimate reason to dislike the term and find it insulting. Imagine how most of the world would react if you started calling them 'gay' when they start acting cheerful."

I guess some more clarification is in order. Here in the US, "pirate" has never held much stigma among the people who actually do the pirating. About five years ago, when P2P apps put music piracy into the mainstream and it was no longer largely the domain of the Slashdot crowd, a new "don't call it piracy, call it copyright infringement" movement took form in an effort to make it more socially acceptable. It was, as you've inferred, started by folks new to piracy, who were offended by the title. That's certainly their prerogative, but it is quite simply revisionist history to claim that piracy isn't a perfectly accurate word.

"And as soon as you can provide a reference to confirm your '400 years' theory, you may get some support for it."

I defer to somebody who has the OED lying around. I used to think the meaning was about 200 years old, then somebody provided a cite the other day for a ~ 300 year old reference from the OED, and then somebody ELSE came up with a 400 year old reference! I wish I'd kept that link. Either way, the OED is a great resource for these sorts of etymological questions, and the definition is very, very old.

"The point is that throwing around emotionally loaded words like 'piracy' and 'theft' is insulting to some."

Apparently so. The bottom line is this: if you're a songwriter and you rely on royalty payments to pay the rent, if you've suddenly found that you're not making ends meet because a new generation has discovered the glorious concept that Information Wants to be Free, it makes not one whit of difference to you or your landlord if the kids helping themselves to your work in lieu of paying for it are calling it "piracy," "copyright infringement," or some word in that African language with the clicking sound. If somebody's costing me money while simultaneously trying to sanitize their actions, I'll kick their ass right proper, regardless of the efforts they've taken to rationalize it.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[shmlco]

The Wikipedia article is, of course, just a tad biased on the issue. The reason the charges were dismissed is because the court didn't want to extend an interstate act, created to cover a loophole in the law, to also cover intellectual property theft, and felt no overwhelming need to do so, as federal law covering such already existed on the books.

And the section you cite, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft" is true, or we wouldn't have all these arguments. But I assume the court said what it meant, and that doesn't EASILY equate is not the same as doesn't equate to, or apply, at all.

At any rate, I totally agree with your recommendations. The best way to kill off the major labels is to legally support artists in other ways, including direct sales from the artist, from alternative distributors (like iTunes exclusives), and so on. Stealing music only adds legitimacy to their case in the eyes of the legal system and the government, and gives them the leverage they need to crack down.

Let people persue legal alternatives, however, and their only real choice is to change their models... or die.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[ruzel]

>DO NOT PURCHASE SONGS BACKED BY THE RIAA

I could not agree with this more! These people are driven by money. Their motive is money. They want more money. Hit them where it counts. It is time for a major boycott. And why not? There are thousands and thousands of unsigned and even signed musicians on small labels and its all out there for you to listen to. Do something novel today and find a non-RIAA musician to listen to. Try 15megsoffame for starters. Listen to music in the public domain music. Check out artists making music under the creative commons. In fact, don't even STEAL RIAA music. Just drop it and them.

Take that non-RIAA music that you find and like and burn it to a CD. Give it to a friend. Tell your friend why they should think about boycotting the RIAA.

This is the only way that the RIAA will ever think about their own problems and their overpricing. It's the ONLY way because it hits them in the pocketbook.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[JetTredmont]

as all crimes require 'intent'...theft requires 'intent to deprive'

Um, sorry, but that (and pretty much the rest of the post here) is complete BS.

There are crimes "with intent" and there are those without. Manslaughter, for instance, is often without intent (there are varying degrees of "intent" and "negligence" involved) while "murder" is defined as requiring intent.

To the point, "theft" I do believe generally involves intent of action. Which means, you "intended" to take something, or were negligent in ensuring that you did not take it. However, in the case you cited, a legal court would likely have found the man guilty of theft, no matter whether he intended to return it or not. Arbitrations are not intended to adhere to the letter of the law but rather to the "spirit" of the law, and if you can make the two parties get all warm and fuzzy without having to deal harsh consequences on one or both then you've done your job. "intent to return" does NOT play into the definition of theft. All that comes into play is "intent to take". If the trolley owner had thrown that in the back of the guy's pick-up, then there would have been no intent to take. In point of fact, however, the man did willfully take the trolley for use elsewhere. Thus, he is guilty of theft.

All that having been said, I'm sorry, but you sound incredibly naive. In your "boat on a lake" example, the guy "borrowing" the boat did materially deprive the boat owner of its services, and was, indeed, guilty of theft. Period.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[drew]

I have looked at iTunes before, but apparently I am not buying average CD's. Most CD's I can think of off the top of my head have at least 10 songs, and I would put the average number of songs on a CD at about 12-15. I usually buy CD's for about $13 or less, and if there's only 1-3 songs that I like on an album, I don't buy it.

I had forgotten about the $10 per album on iTunes, which is a little bit cheaper than a CD, but not enough to make me consider giving up physical media.

As for selling CD's- I never had either until about two years ago. Then I got married and my wife and I merged our music collections, leaving us with a lot of duplicate CD's. So in ~15 years of buying CD's I've only once so far ever used the ability to resell any of them, but that one time was enough to convince me that it is worth keeping that right when I buy new music.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[RedWizzard]

I don't think it fits well at all. Firstly that definition is archaic (though still used in the phrase "rape and pillage". Secondly, where is the force?

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't confront the heart of the matter, which is that they're hypocritical in the extreme.

That is only the "heart of the matter" if what we're talking about is those individuals' own behavior. It's irrelevant to the larger discussion about the merits or lack thereof of our current intellectual property system. Calling an opponent a "hypocrite" when the argument is not about that opponent's own behavior is not a valid form of argumentation. Unless of course you're a fan of ad hominem attacks, which surely you're not.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Travelsonic]

First, "steal an idea" is common vernacular, and so from that perspective physical property need not be lost for it to be considered "stealing".

I really do not see it as common as you do. The term "steal an idea" is from another prespective (and a more commone one as well from what I have seen) a fallical concept that simply is impossible to actually occure, and has no meaning more than emotional confusion. An idea is a raw concept too broad for one's ownership, and oftentimes constructed with many other ideas to create content that is protectable. Raw ideas are not protected under law, and for good reasoning too, IMO.

Regardless, theft of service or signal IS considered theft legally in the state I live in (California) AND, so far as I know, pretty much everywhere else too. Which, IMHO, pretty much leads to the incontrovertible conclusion that stealing a copy of copyrighted works is theft,

Ah, the "It's this here, so it's this all the time" argument. False. Copying a work still falls under copyright infrignement and not theft, because like it's name, you are making an illegal copy and not taking, which differs somewhat from tampering with cable to get free cable, and to this day does not maye it theft, regardless of the asinine attempts at logical reasoning you presented in your post..

They're different types of theft, just like people and squirrels are different types of mammals, but they all fall under the umbrella of "theft", which is, colloquially, getting something you didn't pay for but which you should have.

No, the definition of theft is not so, and it isn't simply so because of one reason - it's too broad. Nobody on earth would be very quick to all of a sudden accept such a rediculosuly broad definition of theft. If "colloquially, getting something you didn't pay for but which you should have" was the all-too-good-general definition, everybody would be in jail, that in combination of the curent state of lawsuits. ALl it would take is somebody having "good faith" that you should have to pay for something where you dreally don't, and you got my senario. I'm telling you, your definition is not accurate, mainly because it is too broad.

All of which, as was said away back when, is COMPLETELY off topic of the original issue, which is that the theft of copyrighted works is WRONG, ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and UNSUSTAINABLE.

Offtopic or not, falsely combining copyright infringement and theft, which is why this whole thing began in the first place is why we are arguing this, and you folk (by that I mean those who bring the topic of "coypright infringemnt VS theft" into a topic to stir up trouble) are only to blame for statring it and trying to switch it up on those who correct you people to avoide the blame.

Illegal, yes copyright infrignemnt (I refuse to call it anything other than what the crime is, and is prosecuted under.), but most of the people arguing the copyright infringement is not theft argument in this topic were aware of and supported this point, unless you people have a really bad comprehension problem. As for immoral, I can think of reasoning for you to fall on that one, since your word is not the absolute word, and apparently much of the world disagrees with you, so trying to force your morals like this will only fail. BTW, I do not condone copyright infrignement, but I can think of seceral exceptions where I think it an be considered a moral act.

If this little diversion tactic wasn't meant as a diversion tactic, why is it so commonly used?

Because when talking about copyright infringement, or anything legal, or factual for that matter, it is not a good idea to change the topic and start calling it other things (unless an opinion is being made of course) since doing so shows a lack of understanding, ignorance, or some othe

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[alelade]

From all those calculations, all i can see is these companies run a high cost, inefficient and outdated production/sales model which needs to change, nothing more. Not especially justification of the price tags attached to shelves.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[ScentCone]

Calling an opponent a "hypocrite" when the argument is not about that opponent's own behavior is not a valid form of argumentation

Well, sure. But indicating what is, and is not hypocrisy as used in the debate at hand... that's reasonable. And calling the people who behave hypocritically what they are is, well, reasonable.

The behavior of millions of people is the heart of the matter, since it is what has made this entire issue an issue at all. And when some of the defenders of that behavior decide to address semantics, rather than the actual behavior itself, then they're being at least sleazily distracting, and if they themselves are part of the problem, then they are indeed hypocrites. Follow the thread and you'll see we're not talking IP law or copyright statutes, but about the tactics used by people arguing those topics.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[DarkPixel]

That is to say that the 'product' being pirated would have actually been bought in the first place. I am so sick of people missing this point. Here, it's really simple.

Lets say that Britney Spears releases a CD. Ten thousand people buy it. Another forty thousand people download some songs or the entire album from the internet. Ok, with me so far? Some things to remember about this scenario, the pirated songs were NOT bought cheaper or at all, they were just 'obtained' for 'free'.

Ok so with that in mind, all I see people scream left and right is "OMGEENOOOO we could be making 500% but those god damned pirates...ARHG!!!"

Well you're WRONG! Why? Because who is to say that if those forty thousand people that downloaded the songs would actually BUY the album if they couldn't get it for free? No one! That is the most invalid assumption that the RIAA and the MPAA has been making.

Essentially, assuming that if I'm getting something free that I shouldn't be is hurting your business because you 'lost' my purchase is idiotic...I never said I wanted to buy it, and if I can't have it for free that sucks, I'm still not buying it...or maybe I am. The point is, that everyone is assuming that I would have bought it.

I am against pirates duplicating material and SELLING it for profit, that's just wrong on many more levels...way more than simply distributing the material freely. True it's still wrong, but has anyone seen MTV Cribs or VH1's Fabulous Life series? Those people don't need any more money >_

Ugh this is a rant. Please, please, please, pretty please, stop assuming that 'illegaly distributed volumes' = 'volumes lost in sales' that is absolutely wrong and it is skewing the whole situation.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[DavidTC]

Sigh.

You didn't read the link at all, did you?

And all (important) crimes do require intent. It's called mens rea.

There are a very very few that do not, like speeding or parking violations, where the mere facts of the evidence makes you guilty, called 'strict libability' crimes, but those are never felonies. They're usually ticketable offenses, in fact. Everything else requires intent to commit the crime.

The difference between homicide and manslaughter is that homicide requires intent to kill, whereas voluntary manslaughter merely requires 'intent to harm', without the actual malic reaching a level of murder.

And involuntary manslaughter? Well, there are two version. One's misdemeanor version of felony murder. The intent required there is to merely commit another crime. If you a committing a misdemeanor when you kill someone, it is involuntary manslaughter, just like it's felony murder when you kill them during any felony.

The other version of manslaughter is negligence, and I suspect it's what you're thinking of when you talk about 'manslaughter'. However, crimes that require negligence require intent. In fact, negligence is a form of intent. That sounds strange to have phrased that way, but failure to do something that you should have know needed to be done is a form of intent.

Basically, the difference between manslaughter and murder is what your intent is, but both of them require intent, aka, mens rea, as do all felonies. Suggesting that manslaughter doesn't require intent is just ignorance.

And your 'intent to take' concept is stupid. No law, anywhere, has ever defined theft as that. It's defined as 'intent to permanently deprive'. (I probably should have pointed out the 'permanent' earlier, but I was trying to point out the 'deprive' part. Some forms of 'theft', BTW, do not require it being permanent, like embezzlement, which is illegal even if you intend to get the money back. But basic theft, aka, larceny, aka, theft by taking, does. I think all 'theft' does.)

And, you know, you'd look less ignorant if you googled a bit and found specific examples of where it is explicitly stated that borrowing is legal. That's according to the University of Texas Criminal Law Department and the Georgia Bar Ass., BTW. Search for 'borrow'.

It's just that court cases where that was argue successfully are had to find.

Here's an appeal where the lawyer said it should worked as a defense, although for some reason he couldn't legally argue it at that point. Normally it's larceny if you move things, even slightly, in an attempt to take them, but he argued that the defendent couldn't have possibly been attempting to steal giant earth-moving equipment.

And here's a very interesting Supreme Court transcript where they talk about the specific lack of the word 'intent' in a certain bank robbery statute. Where they actually talk about people stealing money from a bank with the intent to return it, and how while larcency laws would say that's legal, the Federal bank robbery laws, as written might imply it's not, as they just require 'stealing'. And they don't know if they were meant to be written that way or not, as it happened when they rewrote the definition of steal of be 'intent to deprive' as a 'clean-up', apparently not in an attempt to change the actual crime.

That's the Supreme Court, for those not paying attention. And regardless of whether the bank robbery laws require intent to deprive or not, that doesn't change what they think about 'larcency'. They all accept it requires the intent to permanently deprive. (Robbery, FYI, requires taking from the physical possession of people, usually by intimidation or force.)

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - We are talking about copyright issues, and freedom for the users, and you say that mentioning the person that started a revolution in that subject, changing how we see copyright today, is offtopic?

2 - I consider your comments useless, and i don't go arrount looking for your comments so i can reply to them, but every fucking time i login to /. i see replys from you to my posts, and they are all the same kind of troll, and they are all at -1, don't you ever get tired of it?, I see them 'cause they appear in my messages page, but nobody else will be looking at them, considering that they are at -1, and that you usually post in historys hours after they were published, showing that you just go to my user page, find my last comments, and reply shit to them. So, if i'm such a piece of shit, and all my comments are useless, how is it that you dedicate so much time to make my /. experience a little worse?. This place allready sucks, please stop being a dick.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[MemeRot]

Did you read my post? I said she spent $5,000 of her OWN money to pay for studio time. Yeah, the album's raw sounding, and all the better for it. The studios are happy to let you run up a huge bill for weeks of studio time (at their studios) because that comes out of what would be paid to the artist, and is instead paid to their studio group, i.e. they get to keep most of it since the actual costs to them do not equal the charges to the musician.

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[deesine]

So tell us again: how are the musicians getting paid???

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[csplinter]

First of all that was supposed to be joke, second i was being a devils advocate, third get a since of humor man! :) lighten up

Re:RIAA should address the cause

[RedWizzard]

There's nothing wrong with my sense of humor, how about your ability to tell a joke? Something along the lines of 'I don't know man, I kind of like the idea of being able to say "I just raped me some Metallica"' would have been better. Not that I'm saying that's great or anything, but you need to be funny if you want people to laugh.

Oh, and the devil's advocate position in a discussion is not normally a comedic one so if you want to go that way (especially in a written medium) you need to be more outrageous.

sneakernet

[BWJones]

When you are talking about significantly large amounts of data (hundreds of GBs to TBs) it is actually faster and cheaper to put it on a hard drive and FedEx or (insert your favorite delivery company here) and ship it. Bandwidth is not free (even for those in Universities where a portion of our indirect costs go to pay for bandwidth) and when you factor in time required to transmit GB to TB of info, it is much more efficient to use "sneakernet" or "shipnet".

This of course is leading many folks who deal with large databases to look at options such as moving the application to the data rather than pull data through the network. What does this mean for the media companies? It may eventually have an effect rendering the methodology much like that of the current TV/radio paradigm in that large repositories of media will be constantly available waiting for an application to travel to the database to query and assemble your media request.

Re:sneakernet

[justforaday]

How do I set up my file handlers to deal with this sneakernet thing?

Re:Sneakernet

[Skraut]

Remember these important words of wisdom... Don't Copy that Floppy!

Re:sneakernet

[sentanta]

As more and more creative software 'Final Cut Pro' etc. is developed eventually there will be an inflection point for musicians to move outside of the major record labels and truly be independent. How much does it cost to advertise on Pitchfork? Do you really need to sell your soul to Sony to pay for that? - Long time disgruntled music fan

Re:sneakernet

[Rei]

That's exactly what I was thinking. When they said "recordable media", I was more thinking "hard drives" than "duplicated CDs". You could transfer months worth of nonstop music or weeks of video in minutes.

Re:sneakernet

[Unequivocal]

NetFlix being the most obvious example of how media and content companies can capitalize on this issue..

Re:sneakernet

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you are talking about significantly large amounts of data (hundreds of GBs to TBs) it is actually faster and cheaper to put it on a hard drive and FedEx or (insert your favorite delivery company here) and ship it."

Oh my god - nobody ever noticed this before!! You're such a visionary!!!!!! You're so clever for pointing out something that has never been pointed out before!!!! Wow!!!!!!!!!!

Re:sneakernet

[ArsonSmith]

Really large packet sizes and long timeouts.

Re:sneakernet

[cens0r]

This is already happening. I recently picked up a disc buy clap your hands and say yeah. They recorded and released the album by themselves. They aren't on a label. A few good reviews and some air play on decent radio stations and now you can pick it up most anywhere.

Re:sneakernet

[dgos78]

Change your handlers to either UPS, USPS, or FedEX. Then after watching the merger between Nike and Reebok, go buy yourself some Adidas.

Re:sneakernet

[glesga_kiss]

When you are talking about significantly large amounts of data (hundreds of GBs to TBs) it is actually faster and cheaper to put it on a hard drive

That was my first thought as well. I know people who regularly carry their D: or /ext drive to friends houses. No ESD bags, kid gloves or any special treatment, just pop the drive in the pocket. I mention the latter part just to show that these folk are not geeks, some are very much "Joe Sixpack".

Will be interesting once thumb-drives get up to decent capacity.

Re:sneakernet

[hackstraw]

FedEx or (insert your favorite delivery company here) and ship it.

Yes, I'm showing my age by mentioning of tape trading. But I used to trade tapes via snail-mail all the time. And my favorite shipping company was the USPS. They have "book rates" that include tapes and maybe CDs too that are very inexpensive.

My current situation.

I have over 400Gigs of music at home on my computer (flac encoded ~ 50% compression). That amounts to about 1600 CDs with an average of 50 minutes of music per CD.

That does not count my store bought CDs from before the RIAA lost me as a customer. I do still buy used CDs sometimes, so I guess I'm still a threat to the RIAA even though I'm doing legal stuff. Actually, about 70 to 80% of my pressed aluminum CDs were bought from a used CD store, but I don't need the "new stuff" just the "good stuff".

At even $5/CD, my music collection is not worth over $8,000.

I'm sorry. Its worth $40/month for broadband. Its worth the cost of two 400 gig disks and equipment to interface with them, that is about it.

So, recordable media is a big threat to "music fans". Welcome to the late 70s or early 80s RIAA. That is when we started taping for ourselves.

I often wish I had the problem of holding a bulk of the recorded media out there that everybody wanted so much. Kinda fits that whole supply/demand thing.

Hint -- all you have to do is figure out how to make purchasing a recording a value to people. At this rate, the RIAA will be a painful memory in an wikipedia entry.

Re:sneakernet

[Guppy06]

"When you are talking about significantly large amounts of data (hundreds of GBs to TBs) it is actually faster and cheaper to put it on a hard drive and FedEx or (insert your favorite delivery company here) and ship it."

Probably more secure, too. I suspect that the USPS, at least, would want to see more than a nasty-gram from some RIAA/MPAA lawyer before they let other people see the contents of packages sent to me.

Re:sneakernet

[bot24]

But bandwidth *is* free. If you are the person who owns the cabling, it costs you nothing for data to travel across it. Users are charged for the price of maintaining and upgrading the hardware, and feeding the owners.

Re:sneakernet

[artifex2004]

How do I set up my file handlers to deal with this sneakernet thing?

Let them dress casually, to begin with.
As a bonus, when they wear sneakers, they'll be able to run more quickly between tape drives, and mark the floors less. Higher throughput and less maintainance.

Re:sneakernet

[dakirw]

Probably true. It's most likely that a few users download most of their songs, and then pass those along to their friends on CD or DVD.

Re:sneakernet

[stor]

How do I set up my file handlers to deal with this sneakernet thing?

It's a kernel patch but I wouldn't trust the sanity of the author.

Alternatively, if you want to do it all in userspace from Perl, snarf Net::Sneaker from CPAN.

Cheers
Stor

Re:sneakernet

[Anonymous Coward]

retard.

Re:sneakernet

[digitalextremist]

// excellent call

Hide your mix tapes!!!!

[gbulmash]

This is why every audio tape had a hidden copying tax, a small royalty, legislated into the price, which had to be remitted by the manufacturers of the tapes to ASCAP to be redistributed to artists. I'm not entirely sure, but I think there is a similar sum legislated into the price of video tapes.

ASCAP was lobbying for a similar tax in the '90s on Digital Audio Tape (DAT). Propably the argument against adding it for burnable CD/DVD media is because it's so often used for data... thus the numbers... to justify their position.

Re:Hide your mix tapes!!!!

[JonN]

You can read about the Copyright Board's Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision here.

Re:Hide your mix tapes!!!!

[darkfire5252]

The same goes for standalone CD burners. They require that you buy CD-Rs that are labeled 'music,' because there's an additional fee for those.

Re:Hide your mix tapes!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a tax HAS been added to CD-R (Audio) discs. The CD-R (data) discs don't have the added tax, but arent' supposed to be used for music.

In fact, many of the dedicated CD copiers (the stereo component item, not the PC drive) won't work with CD-R (Data) discs... ...which is precisely why I WON'T buy one of the component items....

F the RIAA

The RIAA mindset

[LordKazan]

"Anything we don't have total control over is a threat to our business model" - RIAA

Re:The RIAA mindset

[Madd Scientist]

isn't that the american mindset?

Re:The RIAA mindset

[gravis_23]

That quote doesn't show up on either Google or Yahoo!. Not very responsible of you to not also link to a site where it is publicly posted.. Tsk tsk!

Re:The RIAA mindset

[LordKazan]

that's a quote of me making up a quote from them

Re:The RIAA mindset

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't that the american mindset?

Only after Judeo-Bolsheviks usurped our business and public policy; originally, no.

Re:The RIAA mindset

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those goddamn pidgeons shitting on the cars in the parking lot are totally screwing up our earnings potential this quarter.

Re:The RIAA mindset

[Threni]

Whoosh! Another one who doesn't understand sarcasm. "But it's not true? How can this be funny?"

hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I download the media through filesharing then burn to recordable media. That makes me public enemy #1

Re:hmmm ...

[Locarius]

I download the media through filesharing then burn to recordable media. That makes me public enemy #1

In Canada, that would make you a law-abiding citizen.

Re:hmmm ...

[Dunbal]

Dude you are right up there with Bin Laden.

Terrorist. :-P

Re:hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, does that really make you "public" enemy #1, or just "RIAA" enemy #1? :D

Re:hmmm ...

[Widowwolf]

Get that mans Ip address. we need to send you a friendly piece of paper in the mail!

Re:hmmm ...

[phlegmofdiscontent]

I got you beat. I bought GTA:San Andreas and applied the Hot Coffee "mod". That makes me public enemy #0.

Re:hmmm ...

[Felinoid]

All the good files are on Taliban servers.

Canadian-Style Media Tax

[goldspider]

Is that in America's near future?

Re:Canadian-Style Media Tax

[dfn5]

Is that in America's near future?

Possibly, but the US already charges more for "Audio" CD-Rs than for "Data" CD-Rs so that someone in the recording industry can get a kickback on the hunch that blank media is being used for copyrighted material. Maybe they figure people are buying the cheaper data CD-Rs for music so they're not getting as much as they could be getting on want more.

Re:Canadian-Style Media Tax

[Shadarr]

From what I've seen of the new legislation, we (Canadians) may be subject to the levy and restrictive anti-copying laws.

Re:Canadian-Style Media Tax

[hackstraw]

Canadian-Style Media Tax

Is that in America's near future?

Dunno, but I would welcome an added $0.05 to the $0.25 price of a blank CD and the end of the RIAA BS.

Actually, I thought for years that the RIAA should just put a tax on all playback systems and let the music be free, or a nominal cost for media.

Especially since Sony is now one of the few remaining recording companies out there, and I've heard they make electronics too. Imagine how popular SACDs and players would be if you could get a SACD quality recording for a few cents since you already bought your SACD player.

Think about how new higher quality media would be available if the profit margins were much better on new players, and there was an instant availability of the newer media too. Things like DVD-audio and DTS audio recordings have essentially failed because of the lack of content and/or players. People seem to buy these MP3 players for years, and it was only recently that it was even legal to buy an MP3.

Oh, this is the mid 80's, lets keep pressing those low quality CDs and over 20 years later let's complain that people are converting CDs to even lower quality MP3s. Much better option, IMHO.

But...

[WTBF]

I bet you they will still go after filesharers, or keep on going on about how "damaging" filesharing is even though it makes no effect and this is more proof of that.

What you have to remember

[Saven Marek]

what you have to remember is the people who are copying music like this are music lovers and are all more likely to be buying music than other people who dont. so cracking down on them will lower revenues for RIAA.

They always miss this logic. Its obvious to anyone who listens.

Re:What you have to remember

[op12]

Its obvious to anyone who listens

In other words, it's obvious to anyone but the RIAA.

Re:What you have to remember

[mdpye]

what you have to remember is the people who are copying music like this are music lovers and are all more likely to be buying music than other people who dont. so cracking down on them will lower revenues for RIAA.

Not quite. People who are copying music like this are music lovers and therefore are all more likely to be buying music which does not belong to the RIAA.

I support the original point that the copying often promotes sales. I swap copied CDs as recommendations among my group of friends, we always end up shelling out for anything worth listening to. I would save a lot of money (and temptation) by not listening to those recommendations!

MP

Re:What you have to remember

[goldspider]

I never understood that argument. If they are so willing to pay for music, why are they copying in the first place?

Not a troll; I honestly don't get it...

Re:What you have to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

because why risk paying $15 for a cd only to have it suck w/ only 1 or 2 good songs. If you get a copy of it and they are a good band, chances are you will be willing to purchase their next CD. Without the copy you would purchase neither.

Re:What you have to remember

[Madd Scientist]

Not quite. People who are copying music like this are music lovers and therefore are all more likely to be buying music which does not belong to the RIAA.

what fucking proof of that do you have? because they listen to music stored on pretty much the universal standard for music storage you can draw conclusions about them? someone needs to work on their understanding of the scientific process me thinks.

Re:What you have to remember

[Karl Cocknozzle]

I never understood that argument. If they are so willing to pay for music, why are they copying in the first place?

Probably the same reason it is easier to sell a car to somebody who has test-driven said vehicle--they know they're getting something they want. I've been exposed to half-a-dozen artists through P2P which led to me buying their records. If I hadn't heard their music first, slim chance of me buying any of it--just too big a financial risk to lay out $14 for a CD that turns out to have one good track.

With P2P, just like the test-drive, if you download something you hate, you delete it. Likewise, if you test-drive a car you don't like, you don't buy it. Think of P2P as the "test-drive" of the music industry...

Except of course, this doesn't benefit the record labels since so much of what they're publishing now is garbage--they're better off if you have to "Buy to try" rather than "Try before you buy."

Re:What you have to remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they want to sound ethical somehow. I can't think of anyone I know who GENUINELY buys more music because of what they listen to via downloaded mp3s. Me, I stopped buying CDs in 1999 and everything I listen to has been downloaded since then. Call it laziness, sloth, selfishness, greed - whatever, if I want music now I will get it now and after I have it, there's no need to go buy it.

That's how it works for most people I know who are honest with themselves in their unethical music downloading, as opposed to those who need to lie about their hypocrisy.

Re:What you have to remember

[cens0r]

I buy more because I can download and burn cd's. I listen to 10+ new cd's a week. Most of them I only hear once before I delete the files or throw the CD-R (if i copied it from a friend) away. But between my fiance and I we probably buy 2-3 records a week. Neither of us bought that much music before we could sample it.

Re:What you have to remember

[mdpye]

what fucking proof of that do you have?

Easy tiger! Was a wee joke about the quality of the RIAA's music output, nothing serious. The first half of the sentence was a straight quote from the OP ffs.

MP

Sneakernet

[Shadow Wrought]

Just one more reason why, no matter how voluminous the Internet becomes, it will never replace sneakernet. Now where'd that floppy get to?

In other news...

[harrkev]

In other news, the RIAA has concluded that people are the biggest threat to the recording industry. They are proposing legistlation that will allow all people to be shot.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Cause I certainly didn't pay for the right to listen to that crap-ass eminem song that my idiot neighbor likes to blast out his stereo at 1AM.

Re:In other news...

[mopslik]

RIAA is reported to be lobbying heavily against the speaker industry.

I'd join in the modding-post-as-Funny mindset, if I hadn't read this gem a while back. Saddening.

Re:In other news...

[warpSpeed]

One small correction:

In other news, the RIAA has concluded that their customers are the biggest threat to the recording industry. They are proposing legistlation that will allow all of their customers to be shot.

Re:In other news...

[johndierks]

Ouch. That hurts my head... even more than the RIAA's awful tunes.

Re:In other news...

[vettemph]

>your - belongs to you
>you're - you are

You're your self.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

This gets modded Funny, but DRM-ed monitors is a grave threat? What?

MPAA is reported to be lobbying heavily against the monitor industry. "According to our studies, 100% of illegally obtained music is enjoyed through monitors," said MPAA spokesman, Steven Jones. "We implore Microsoft to move quickly to protect artists from the criminals wandering the streets, watching illegal films through monitors that won't distort unauthorized content upon recognizing a specific watermark."

How funny is that, huh?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Judging by the huge amount of corrupted music on p2p networks, it seems quite a bit of music is downloaded and never listened to.

Re:In other news...

[HydroPhonic]

"According to our studies, 100% of illegally obtained music is enjoyed through speakers." said RIAA spokesman, Steven Jones [sic]

Boy, are you out of touch! Don't you know REAL pirates only listen through earbuds?!!

Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to 1978!

Heard that one before...

[Anonymous Coward]

what was it the first time? Home taping would kill TV, radio, or some such thing?

There is indeed nothing new under the sun, like Louis XIV used to say...

And what's next, they'll want a ban on blank media, too?

Oy. What a bunch of schmucks.

BAN IT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pass a law! No CDRs! No flash drives! No floppies! Come to think of it....hard drives are bad too! Limit people to ONLY pen and paper. On second thought.....those are bad too....

same RIAA, different idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

People make their own mix CDs. That's not illegal. Friends and families loan/make copies. That's not illegal either.

This is just the excuse of the week to exmplain away the homogenous garbage that the record companies are having a harder and harder time selling.

CD-R tax

[ch-chuck]

Just slap a CD-R tax on blank media like the Canadians. It's too entrenched to be killed off with a tax like DAT's were. If you think your losing revenue from illegal copying, apply for a share of the CD-R taxes. End Of Problem.

Re:CD-R tax

[argent]

We already DO this. That's the only difference between "Music CDRs" and "Data CDRs".

Re:CD-R tax

[deadmongrel]

Why stop at the media? Slap the tax on anything the can play music. Finally you will end up paying taxes on everything.Besides, why should I pay for somthing that I am never going to use?

Re:CD-R tax

[vnaught]

But the Audio Home Recording Act affirmed a right to personal use, you CAN'T tax all media in the US without impinging on rights established in 1992.

Re:CD-R tax

[calibanDNS]

And what about us poor schmucks who buy blank CDs for purposes other than music piracy? I don't want my CD-R purchases taxed more just because the RIAA is too stubborn to overhaul its business model.

Re:CD-R tax

[nkh]

Not in France and some countries in Europe: you still have the tax automatically added to CDRs, hard-disks and even the iPods (25 for the 60GB version). This is the biggest scam I've ever seen but it's hidden, so no one cares for the moment.

Re:CD-R tax

[Professor_UNIX]

And what about us poor schmucks who buy blank CDs for purposes other than music piracy? I don't want my CD-R purchases taxed more just because the RIAA is too stubborn to overhaul its business model.

Movie and software piracy won't be tolerated by their respective groups either. Other than pirating one or more of those three things, I can't imagine what anyone needs this "recordable media" for.

Re:CD-R tax

[shark72]

"And what about us poor schmucks who buy blank CDs for purposes other than music piracy?"

It's easy, at least in the US -- avoid the CD-Rs labelled "music" or "audio" and you'll do fine. The only difference is a bit of encoding near the spindle that lets set-top CD burners recognize them. There is no levy in the US on general-purpose data CD-Rs (although I can't say the same for our friends in Canada).

"I don't want my CD-R purchases taxed more just because the RIAA is too stubborn to overhaul its business model."

We'll put it aside for a second that the large majority of the levy on audio CD-Rs goes to artists and musicians (an important point to understand for anybody who kneels at the altar of "artists good, record companies bad"). But can you elaborate on the business model to which you're referring? If you're referring to the "charge money for goods and services" model, it's undergone significant changes in the past ten years. CD prices have dropped almost 50%, and they've finally embraced online distribution, which is growing at a logarithmic rate. They're using the "carrot and stick" approach: sure, they're lowering prices and taking advantage of the demand for downloadable music, but they'll also sue people if they think it will ultimately help their bottom line. Likewise, if they get a small percentage of the levy charged on digital recording devices and media, it's all good. Just as in your household budget, more money is always better.

This is an approach taken by many businesses. For instance, if you ran a retail store, you'd consider running sales and selling high quality merchandise and doing advertising -- you're not relegated to picking just one strategy, and neither are record companies.

Re:CD-R tax

[Gobelet]

Well that's why we always say here in France, but they just tell us to fuck off. We have CD-Rs for almost 2$ a piece FFS!

Re:CD-R tax

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there are other things you could put on a cd.
Open source software, pictures or video you make your self, backups, ...

Re:CD-R tax

[smchris]

I can't imagine what anyone needs this "recordable media" for.

I'm staring at the two-DVD set of Debcon 2005 lecture videos I downloaded and just burned this weekend in fact.

There are the Australia 2004 and 2003 linux conference CDs. Every computer I have is running from an ISO download of one sort or another. A DSL web server is so small I Mondo Archive a bare metal backup to CD-RW.

And there _is_ free web entertainment: IMPs, The Scene, Starship Exeter and the recent Star Wars movielette out of Baltimore to name a few.

Re:CD-R tax

[pjrc]

A few years ago, I got a similar attitude from a clerk at Fry's, who could only imagine I was going to use those 300 CDRs to copy music.

I wasn't in a good mood. I was going to be up all night, copying my company's (them employer's) new cdrom-based catalogue onto every single one of those discs, all because some lame CD duplication company dropped the ball and didn't deliver in time for the salemen to go to some trade show.

Just as the Fry's clerk, you never thought of that, did you?

Admittedly, I only got about 100 copied before getting tried and going to sleep (the disc was only about 50 megs, but the closing took time on my then-slow burner). But it was enough. This was back in the late 90s, when mp3s were becoming popular, but a lot of companies still didn't have internet access for most employees.

Even today, when most people have reasonable internet access, cdroms are still very popular for distributing software and documentation that's included with a product. For high volume, obviously you're going to use pressed CDs. But for niche products (if you ever buy any such things), take a look at the CD. It's usually a CDR. For small companies with niche products, CDR is a great alternative when relatively few discs need to be made, or the material needs to be updated frequently.

FWIW, a good number of people also use CDR/CDRW for backups and for delivering large files.

I used to backup onto CDR. Nowadays I use removable hard drives, but CDRW is really good for consumers who usually have under 600 megs of irreplacable data and are on a budget that doesn't allow specific backup hardware.

Most people have crappy email service that can't reliably deliver a file over a few megabytes (and sometimes much less). When someone creates some silly powerpoint presentation that includes a couple hi-res images they "dragged" off their multimegapixel camera, how are they going to get it from their desktop machine over to a laptop or some machine connected to a presentation screen? Yeah, reducing the picture resolution ain't gonna happen, especially when the "problem" is discovered at the last minute! Burning a CDR is the obvious way. It's really the only consistently reliably way for the overwhelming majority of computer users to deliver a large file from one machine to another.

There are probably several other common, legitimate uses. But there are three I've personally encountered.

Re:CD-R tax

[Professor_UNIX]

Sorry, I forgot my sarcasm tags. :-)

clunka-clunka-clunka

[yellowbkpk]

...the sounds of the 48" dual lawyer-guns on Battleship RIAA rotating to their new target.

What good are our fair use rights if the RIAA keeps blank media out of our hands?

Imagine a world where you have to go to the "ghetto" to pick up your black-market, vintage 32x Imation CD-Rs...

Re:clunka-clunka-clunka

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to send in the carriers after the RIAA then. That'll teach 'em that new tech trumps old tech!

Re:clunka-clunka-clunka

[0Seeker0]

I'm afraid that "clunka-clunka-clunka" sound has been copyrighted by the RIAA and you are clearly infringing on their right to profit from it. Don't you at least have the decency not to pirate the sounds of their death ships?!

Re:clunka-clunka-clunka

[yellowbkpk]

I paid ASCAP for the graphical representation of the sound, so it's ok.

Quick!!!

[SoulMaster]

Let's all run out and buy some bulk blanks before RIAA starts suing us!

Oh... wait... that's right, they sue the distributors! Look out Best Buy!

Bias?

[beanlover]

First sentence in TFA:

The Recording Industry Ass. of America has acknowledged that P2P file-sharing is less of a threat to music sales than bootleg CDs.

Anyone think this is on purpose?

Re:Bias?

[teh kurisu]

Of course it is, it's The Register.

Re:Bias?

[Anonymous Coward]

First sentence in TFA: The Recording Industry Ass. of America has acknowledged that P2P file-sharing is less of a threat to music sales than bootleg CDs. Anyone think this is on purpose?

Er.. yes!

Re:Bias?

[Pfhorrest]

Hey, there's a building visible from the 101 Freeway near LA that just says "Asian American Ass.". I'd buy some of whatever they're selling...

Re:Bias?

[vidarlo]

The Recording Industry Ass. of America has acknowledged that P2P file-sharing is less of a threat to music sales than bootleg CDs. Anyone think this is on purpose?

Yes. They're very consistent, and always write it that way...

What next...

[Sibb]

So does that mean that since I can't get Chumbawumba's Tub Thumping out of my head because it's so damn annoying, that my mind is subject to a fine by the RIAA? When will the idiocracy stop?!?

Re:What next...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang thought I would never sing that in my head again....thx alot!

Re:What next...

[Dunbal]

I can't get Chumbawumba's Tub Thumping out of my head because it's so damn annoying, that my mind is subject to a fine by the RIAA?

      Yes, comrade. Report directly to the Ministry of Love immediately for readjustment. Don't worry. Before we kill you, we promise you that you will love the RIAA completely.

Oh sure

[Approaching.sanity]

Blame the media.

curious

[geoff lane]

So did the Compact Cassette kill live music?

Or did live music kill the Compact Cassette?

Re:curious

[Anonymous Monkey]

Or...
Did video kill the radio star, or did radio kill the video star?

Re:curious

[JimB]

You forget. There is a surcharge on every blank cassette sold that goes DIRECTLY to the media moguls.

Re:curious

[thephotoman]

Nah. MP3 killed the media star.

Oh, wait...

Re:curious

[ScentCone]

So did the Compact Cassette kill live music?

No, but we're not talking about live music. The issue is bit-for-bit perfect copies, endlessly reproduceable and sucked up by many thousands of people to cheap to pay the artists they "love." In the case of recordable CDs, the propogation is slower (more like it was with cassettes) but you can maintain the same quality without having to go back to the vinyl original, etc. No, the problem is quite different in practice and in scope.

How do they get those numbers?

[gardyloo]

I read the articles linked to (and those linked to from the linked-to articles, ad. nauseum), but none (that I saw) said how these numbers are collected. Are there polls asking, "How many CDs have you illegally copied in the last year?"

All of Recorded Music

[LionKimbro]

We're just going to get copies of "All of Recorded Music."

You'll go to your friends' house, pick up your copy of All of Recorded Music, and there you go.

We'll have government "get tough" policies against illegal ownership of "All of Recorded Music."

"Congradulations, you have just stolen $10,000,000,000,000 worth of music," they'll say.

But everyone'll do it, anyways. At least have easy access to it.

In other news...

[johndierks]

RIAA is reported to be lobbying heavily against the speaker industry. "According to our studies, 100% of illegally obtained music is enjoyed through speakers." said RIAA spokesman, Steven Jones. "We implore congress to move quickly to protect artists from the criminals wandering the streets, listening to illegal music through speakers."

Such a tax *was* added to certain types of CD-Rs.

[Richard Steiner]

My Philips CD burner will only burn music to CD-R blanks which are marked in a certain way and which are formally certified for music use.

Those blanks are more expensive than data CD-R blanks because the music industry already gets a cut.

My life completely changed when I got a DVD burner

[veganopolis]

I have to tell you, this thing is great. I am learning a new language and we have several video stores in town that cater to said language. I stop in, rent a DVD, take home, burn, and return. Then I can sit around a watch it as long as I want.

It is funny though, all of the DVDs I rent are copies anyway, so I guess it doesn't really make a difference. And certainly not for the RIAA.

But for those of you who don't support the RIAA, grow some balls and stop buying their products. Seriously, this is the only way that these things are going to end. BOYCOTT! it is ok, it is your right, get to it!

RIAA has it all wrong!

[confusion]

100% of piracy is a result of people/companies releaseing copywrited works.

Whether it's recordable media, p2p, thumb drives, magic crystals, or something else, the cat is out of the bag, and there's no going back. Time after time after time efforts to counter the problem are thwarted very quickly. Honest people are going to be honest, (but with the try before you buy advantage) and bad people are going to be bad.

This reminds me of the story of Sisyphus. It's time to stop pushing the rock up the hill and start looking for new business models!

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/

Re:RIAA has it all wrong!

[brouski]

Is that the business model where they give away music for free?

Re:RIAA has it all wrong!

[angusmci]

confusion wrote:

It's time to stop pushing the rock up the hill and start looking for new business models

That may be exactly what they're doing. A crackdown on illegal downloading plus an absurdly-high levy on recordable media might eventually create a situation where they can ram Internet-based subscription services down our throats. Under this model, you don't 'own' music, you just rent it. As soon as you stop the monthly payments, all your music goes away.

One of the problems with CDs or DVDs for the content producers is that no matter how much they inflate the cost, they can only sell each one once. Whereas a subscription-style service could really be the gift that keeps on giving month after month. Implementing this across the board requires the cooperation of hardware and software producers, as well as a servile legislature that is willing to dance blindly to the tune of big business, of course, but experience has shown that neither of these are hard to come by.

This analysis is perhaps a little paranoid. Nevertheless, it's safe to say that the RIAA was not formed in order to offer consumers better value. I think we can safely predict that whatever new distribution models they do propose will be for their convenience, not ours.

Re:RIAA has it all wrong!

[confusion]

Clearly not. I am not one of the people that thinks all intellectual property is bad. But, what I am saying is that the current model has been broken into a million little pieces by the state of technology, and hence will no longer be sufficient to make money and compensate artists and *cough* record labels.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/

Re:RIAA has it all wrong!

[confusion]

What you're describing is socialism. We'll tax radios, cd burners, blank media, memory, hard drives, etc and pay that to the RIAA who distributes it to the record labels, who turns around and gives the artists their meager salary (meager in proportion to the starting amount).

Once that happens, we all may as well become musicians because it won't matter one bit how popular or good we are to get paid. Our money is derived from the tax, not from CD sales any more.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/

Spin Spin Spin

[saur2004]

To push through mandatory DRM crap through congress.

In Other News....

[Krach42]

Today the RIAA reported that the root cause of their piracy problems was their pricing scheme. When asked how to deal with the issue, they said that they were going to make music more affordable, so that it cost less time and money than the time and effort to pirate it.

In other news, 42 inches of snow fell hard in Hell today, to the surprised residences. A sweet scene of tortured souls being allowed a break to run out and have fun due to the little known "Snow Day" clause that let them have the day off. Aww... they're making snow angels... isn't that cute?

Re:In Other News....

[shark72]

"When asked how to deal with the issue, they said that they were going to make music more affordable, so that it cost less time and money than the time and effort to pirate it."

Although you were being sarcastic, that is indeed major part of their strategy (and more here). The record labels can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time, and they've acknowledged using -- in their own words -- a "carrot and stick" approach. This certainly makes sense -- if you owned a retail store and you noticed that you were losing a lot of money to theft, you'd certainly look into lowering your prices to reduce the impulse to shoplift, but you'd install that security system and prosecute shoplifters, too.

FWIW, in 1995, a new CD cost about $18. That would be about $22.50 in today's money -- meaning that CD prices have dropped by almost half in constant dollars.

Ban the CDr!

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of God, won't someone PLEASE think of the executives?!

Bullshit!

[GecKo213]

The more I hear about the RIAA and the MPAA complaining about piracy the more it irritates me. Bullshit!

I'm waiting for the day that they want to start charging us for humming or singing a song that we happen to have heard enough to have it memorized.

Re:Bullshit!

[jtorkbob]

No kidding! I'm first in line for whatever neat implants they come up with to put a computer in my noggin. Am I going to have to run DRM in my brain for the copyrighted materials that I will remember with perfect clarity? Kind of scarry...

Re:Bullshit!

[daspriest]

They practically can and do, just try running a restaurant and singing "Happy Birthday to you" on a regular basis without having to pay.

May not be exactly the same idea as what you are thinking of, but still, its a horrible concept.

Re:Bullshit!

[guaigean]

Dear Mr. GecKo213,
It has come to our attention that you have been reproducing copyrighted works via unauthorized distribution methods (i.e., humming, whistling, et al). We at the RIAA would like to ask you at this time to cease and desist these actions. Refusal to comply could result in legal action. Thank you, and please remember that we are here to support the intellectual property of struggling artists.

-The RIAA

Morons...

[topical_surfactant]

This is nuts. Next thing you know, they'll be trying to get a fee for installed cabling and 802.11-capable routers because they too 'cause piracy'.

Re:Morons...

[Dunbal]

they'll be trying to get a fee for installed cabling and 802.11-capable routers because they too 'cause piracy'.

      There's a much simpler solution. Just cut everyone's ears off. Yes. That's right. Take em off, that way they can't hear anymore. End of piracy. Oh, wait...

Let's abandon them then, and do it Right.

[starseeker]

OK, I have an idea. Let's stop with the stealing of music, and let them do whatever they want to stop us from copying it. There's a simple answer - don't buy it. Instead, create and listen to free content.

Let's get behind iRATE radio, and really get it into shape (http://irate.sf.net./ As a piece of software, from the user end I must confess its user interface leaves a lot to be desired. It's unpolished, unfinished, and has a variety of major missing pieces and flaws. BUT.

I use it quite a lot, because it has something that few other programs have. CONTENT. Legal, free content. Much of it I don't care for (the same could be said of normal radio, for that matter) but the more people involved, the more attention it gets, the better a) the software will get and b) the content will get. As more people prune out the truly bad and things get more interesting, it can (maybe even will) snowball.

I think iRate, or some fork thereof, needs some major improvements, granted. They need to:

a) Update their music selection algorithms, give users a choice of algorithms and a way to indicate genra preferences, and provide a default download pack of the highest rated music to start with (don't start new users with the worst or random, start them with the best! any marketer can tell you you've gotta hook them before you can reel them in.)

b) For goodness sake make the interface modern and more useful as a music player! Model it on iTunes, or whatever other good ones are out there(Rhythmbox isn't too bad) but get off the feature starved java interface.

c) Hook in bittorrent with some kind of legal download only constraints, and give content creators the opportunity to distribute their music using this system if they license it under creative commons terms.

d) Have an elected membership which reviews songs BEFORE they go on the bittorrent network, and have them either give it a yea or nay. Then have two options - the filtered bittorrent, with music that has at least undergone minimal quality control, and the unfiltered madness :-)

Let's show the commercial world that community spirit still exists, and can survive on its own. Open source did it for software, now let's do it for music. Sure it might be harder than for software, but who would have bet on open source 20 years ago? Let's give it an honest to goodness shot, and see if it can be made to work.

Re:Let's abandon them then, and do it Right.

[garcia]

OK, I have an idea. Let's stop with the stealing of music, and let them do whatever they want to stop us from copying it. There's a simple answer - don't buy it. Instead, create and listen to free content.

Thanks, at least someone has been paying attention to what I've been saying all these years! Do not buy music that is backed by the RIAA. Only support the bands that allow the free distribution of their music.

There are already plenty of torrent trackers and listing services out there that do exactly what you propose (and I have listed them before). The "madness" you claim might exist, won't. Artists are still taught to believe what the RIAA is feeding them and it will likely never been overflowing like you hope.

e-tree and dimeadozen along w/various others already take care of the tracking and listing. We just need more bands to allow the trading of their content.

If the RIAA gets their way and either taxes recordable media out of the realm of usefulness or somehow gets it so protected it violates fair-use, then we need to bring back the P2P networks and get people to realize that there are viable performers out there that are releasing their stuff to the public for free!

Re:Let's abandon them then, and do it Right.

[jfengel]

Actually, I think it'll be easier for music than for software.

Open-source software exists against a background of closed-source software. Many people who work on open source have day jobs writing closed-source software, or get to open-source part of their work while closing the parts that are specific to their clients. The most successful bits of open source, Apache and Linux, are heavily subsidized by large corporations that also write closed-source software.

Open source has done well, but it's far from replacing closed-source, and I believe it would slit its own throat if it did.

Music, on the other hand, requires no support network. Go out and download music from iRate or any of the other myriad places you can find free music. Even better, find a band you like and actually buy their CD.

Finding a band you like is a challenge, but it always has been. The RIAA has made it easy on you by buying up all the radio time and making huge marketing efforts. The ideas you mention are good starts, but the best advertising for a band is always word of mouth.

Re:Let's abandon them then, and do it Right.

[starseeker]

"There are already plenty of torrent trackers and listing services out there that do exactly what you propose (and I have listed them before). "

Hmm. I didn't know about this (and I assume I'm not the only one) - could you put up a link to your prior listings? Most of the battle in this game is making people aware of what's out there in the first place.

what a joke

[bugi]

The recordable media "problem" was solved years ago by bands such as the Grateful Dead.

That means p2p as a problem is a joke, and old-guard music distributors are so self-absorbed they pay attention to only themselves.

(IOW, just because a narcissist has a bullhorn doesn't mean he's right.)

Music fans???

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they meant to say pirates acquire almost twice as many songs from illegally duplicated CDs as from unauthorized downloads...

Re:Music fans???

[Dunbal]

Don't forget, this is the RIAA. Music fans, pirates - it's all the same thing.

Re:Music fans???

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget musicians, too. The RIAA hates musicians as much or more than the fans!

Re:Music fans???

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they meant to say pirates acquire almost twice as many songs from illegally duplicated CDs as from unauthorized downloads...

No, I'm pirate but I don't copy music because I'm not that interested in it. I copy DVDs and computer games. Only a pirate who was also a music fan would be relevant here.

Is this a joke? Look at the MEASURE!

[PhYrE2k2]

C'mon- is this a joke?

"acquire almost twice as many songs from illegally duplicated CDs as from unauthorized download"

Wait? Really? So when people copy 16 tracks on an album compared to downloading 1, the numbers of the former exceed the latter? They say this so they can go after yet another target- writable media. Though how many of those tracks get listened to? When people download their favourite song, they often don't download the whole album (though some do).

So now the RIAA has a new target now that they've lost economies of scale attacking P2P... then they'll go after P2P again. Joy!

This is useless.

-M

Sneakers

[mfh]

It may eventually have an effect rendering the methodology much like that of the current TV/radio paradigm in that large repositories of media will be constantly available waiting for an application to travel to the database to query and assemble your media request.

It's funny you should mention sneakers. I just finished Who Moved My Cheese and I was thinking that the RIAA are a bunch of Hems, stuck in a rut they can never get out of.

I think that music is going to become more and more over rated as time goes on. We'll have lots of ways to obtain it, but eventually we'll just forget the relevance of it, if orgs like the RIAA keep pressing for more control. What will be more interesting to us, will be making our own music using better apps and samples.

Eventually we'll have the singing sword, like in the Forgotten Realms, so we won't need to tip the Bards any more than they are due, which by now is about the cost of a kick in the arse.

Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision

[JonN]

You can read about the Copyright Board's Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision here.

Please not another tax.

[team99parody]

I don't pirate movies (no tv) or music (my purchased cd collection is already too large) - so please don't subject me to a tax to cover your inability to stop a bunch of guys stealing your material.

Personally, I'd like to see the RIAA get their deepest, most desperate desire of locking down all their media and making anyone who wants it pay full price. And I wish them success in offending their best customers by making criminals out of them.

Allowing them to succeed in offending their customer base in this way is the best thing that could happen to independant labels with more reasonable policies and independant artists who go alone with no label. Perhaps then we'll see a FSF/GPL of music able to take roots.

My favourite source: Local Library

[darkCanuck]

Online I can't find the music I want at the quality I want, so I just request CDs by the dozen from my local library.

Membership fee: $15/year
Music collection: 60GB and climbing

The selection isn't half bad (for the most part I don't listen to mainstream music) and the wait is usually respectable so long as the artist didn't recently die.

Granted, it seems a substantial amount of other borrowers can't seem to handle a CD well enough to keep the data side from looking like they used them to clean graphitti off brick walls.

Track but not catch?

[RyoShin]

I've always wondered: If the *AA has the ability to track these illegal activities, be it themselves or through another company (in this case, NPD), why can't they go after the big distributors?

Yes, the RIAA has filed a good number of suits, but there is "obviously" still a lot of illegal file sharing going on, indicating that either one million people have five different songs each, or that a few hundered have a few thousand songs and the other million download from them. I'd put more money on the later, indicating that there are still 'big fish' out there.

If so, and they are tracking this swapping, why not go after them? Slashdot ethics aside, they have at least the legal ability to sue them (as has been done.) Nothing would make the RIAA execs happier than free money, assuming they win/settle.

If they don't go after them because of a lack of evidence, then how can they (rightfully) claim these figures?

The case of "illegally copied" CDs is a little harder; most of these are probably just one friend copying a CD for another, and having this system work back and forth. But this brings up another question: How do they track the "illegally produced" CDs? Are they just polling people?

Re:Track but not catch?

[iotashan]

Because NPD is a market research company (that I work for). Basically it works like this:

We ask people for some personal, demographic information. Once that is collected, we ask them questions. We collect the data, and give the RIAA a report on what we find. We do not (and can not) give the RIAA any of the personal information.

Also, the survey is geared toward the *downloaders*, not the distributors.

Re:Track but not catch?

[Overzeetop]

They don't want to catch these folks. It takes too much effort. What they want is blanket coverage in the form of laws which give them ultimate and unassailable rights under terms which they may dictate and change to suit their profitability. Like any great politcal group, they are using the media to trumpet their cause in every way possible. By claiming multiple "worst" areas of loss, they creat buzz which seems to paint them as an industry under seige, fighting for their very existance, in need of help from the government just to keep the industry from crashing and putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work. They don't really give a rat's ass about the actual numbers or the way they're collected, as long as it proves their point.

Re:Track but not catch?

[FragHARD]

But wait, if the survey is geared towards the 'downloaders', not the distributers... yet 78% of all downloaded music is through p2p -- hence capability of distributing, thus in this case downloaders=distributers no???

Re:Track but not catch?

[iotashan]

Ok... maybe "geared toward downloaders" was the wrong thing to say. Basically, we would (and this is my best guess) send out a survey to say, 500,000 (random) people asking if they bought or downloaded any music in the past X months. If they have, then we ask them specifics on how they aquired their music. It's not like we troll the P2P servers looking for people to take a survey.

eh? how? numbers?

[zxnos]

ftfa: According to Bainwol, in turn citing figures from market watcher NPD, 29 per cent of the recorded music obtained by listeners last year came from content copied onto recordable media. Only 16 per cent came from illegal downloads. Legal downloads accounted for four per cent of music acquisitions, while official CDs accounted for almost 50 per cent of the total.

how do they get these numbers? seriously. anyone?

Re:eh? how? numbers?

[iotashan]

We ask you, the consumer, how you get your music.

Seriously. We send the survey out to a large group of people, and (basically) tally it up.

Yes, I work for NPD. No, I have nothing to do with this particular survey (I don't even work for that industry group)

Re:eh? how? numbers?

[quarkscat]

Whoa! That is an EZ-Answer(TM).

The RIAA got their data from the very same place
that the MPAA got theirs, and the Dubya regime got
their WMD data, and the government statisticians
got their CPI (Consumer Price Index) data -- they
ALL pulled it from the very same dark, stinky
place that they never see because that's also
where their (collectively speaking) heads are!

Next question?

Reduced-Insanity Logic

[thc69]

I don't know the numbers, but there may be something to this claim -- although probably not for much longer.

See, any average schmoe will download a few tracks, but it's still too much work to get a whole album. However, copying a CD now only takes a few clicks and a couple minutes, and when done, that average schmoe will play it -- and then maybe say "I'll buy it tomorrow..." "I'll buy it next week..." "Oh, I'm so tired of it, why bother to buy it?".

However, with increasing bandwidth, it becomes easier to download a whole album in a single .rar file.

The solution? Like others say, reasonable pricing, IMO. If for $2 I could download a legal .rar of an album (without DRM), I'd buy constantly. As it stands, I just pay monthly for Sirius satellite radio and don't bother buying albums anymore.

Wheat from the Chaff

[strredwolf]

Lets take this seriously for a minute. Duplicating whole CD's is one thing -- you get, what, 12-18 songs of variable quality? Which songs are good and which ones are bad are very subjective, down to person-to-person!!! This very reason is why folks like paying $1/song through iTunes, or are going P2P -- they want specific songs. Why pay for 18 songs when all you want is two or three at most?

The only way I've done that was to get a CD with "King Fu Fighter" on it, and it turns out there was another version on the same CD with the origional that I liked too.

There's only a few people who want to plunk down $15 to $25 per CD case when the CD's can be pressed for like $5 at most if you go to Walmart for your supplies. Also, there's a few artists who are worth buying the whole CD every time -- and as I said before, those are so subjective it's fine-grained down to every individual person.

The RIAA is trying to fight the effects from the cause: Just crappy music! The RIAA should take the page from what Apple started -- digital distribution, and if someone wants a CD in the store, it's burned then and there, in the store.

Setting us up for copy protection...

[renard]

Keep your eyes on this one, folks. What the RIAA et al. are telegraphing here is their intent to introduce copy-protected CDs into the US market in a big way over the next year (ie. holidays 2005). In order to bulldoze over consumer's objections, they will need to maintain a constant drumbeat of "piracy, piracy". At the same time they will put the squeeze on retailers to refuse return-requests from buyers who find the latest album won't play in their DVD/Car stereo/Mac computer, and who are pissed.

Long term, they will be looking to get a tax on blank media introduced through their pet Congresspeople, just as in Canada. Don't expect it will let you rip & burn to your heart's content though... it will be framed purely in terms of payback for all that consumer misbehavior.

-renard

Re:Setting us up for copy protection...

[LesPaul75]

That's it! I can't take this anymore! I'm moving to Canad... Oh, dang.

Re:Setting us up for copy protection...

[sinewalker]

Bah, let them. I don't want to copy their shitty products anyway. If I have a family member who buys something from EMI Records, etc and it won't play in their equipment any more, I'll encourage them to return the defective product.

suitcase

[Anonymous Coward]

the word in the image is suitcase

The Recording Industry Ass. of America

[Overzeetop]

Hmmm, interesting abbreviation by the Register. Usually Association is abbreviated Assn., but this seems more appropriate.

Anyway, what nobody has mentioned (and since I rarely buy pop music I don't know about) is that iTunes (on Macs only...the article was unclear) regularly bypasses Macrovision's copy protection schemes. Does EAC have problems with these "protected" discs, or is it just WMP that MV is out to jinx.

The old days

[dogolopee]

I remember back when I was a kid, we used to copy cassets and make mixed tapes of the songs we liked all the time. We also used to record music from the radio onto a casset and share music between friends. I don't recall the music industry raiding homes and sueing kids over "pirated" music back in the 80's. If anything it was these mix-tapes that got us to listen to more types of music and eventually buy a full tape if we liked what we heard. I would kind of like to see the numbers between sales pre/post casset tapes and pre/post cd-r.

Tax would kill Free Music movements.

[team99parody]

so please don't subject me to a tax to cover your inability to stop a bunch of guys stealing your material. ... Perhaps then we'll see a FSF/GPL of music able to take roots.

Oh, and a tax would be the surest thing to kill such a Free-Music movement - because suddenly the Free/Open Music would be forced to subsidize the labels.

Re:Tax would kill Free Music movements.

[kfg]

What the hell do you think the point of all of this is?

KFG

Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[Bodysurf]

Unless you want to risk being sued...

I mean, who, other than a pirate, would buy a couple hundred blank CDRs/DVDRs?

Learn your lesson from those who got sued by DirecTV because they merely bought something that could be used for an illegal purpose.

Want to get illegally sued and threatened to get dragged into court and explain how you used every last one of those blank CDRs/DVDRs you purchased?

Think I've been looking for black helicopters? Ask the aforementioned THOUSANDS of people who got sued if they could do it all over again if they would pay with a credit card again?

Don't leave a paper trail, electronic or otherwise.

Bottom line: If you are gonna use blank media for quasi-legal purposes, then be smart and do it via "cash and carry." Let some other poor slob get sued.

Re:Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[brouski]

This is borderline tinfoil territory. I suppose OJ Simpson thought getting into smartcard programming would being him one step closer to finding the real killer?

Re:Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[Bodysurf]

This is borderline tinfoil territory. I suppose OJ Simpson thought getting into smartcard programming would being him one step closer to finding the real killer?

I agree, but OJ was busted with the stuff hooked up to his TV/satellite box.

There are thousands of people who got sued for mere possession of the stuff, rather than caught in the act using it. Could you undergo a civil deposition where the RIAA's attorneys make you explain what you did with all those blank CDRs/DVDRs you purchased? I mean, NOBODY, other than a pirate could possibly go thru that much blank media.

The only "safety" one may have is the way larger numbers of people who pirate music/videos versus who hacked DTV.

Re:Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[ScentCone]

If you are gonna use blank media for quasi-legal purposes, then be smart and do it via "cash and carry." Let some other poor slob get sued.

"Quasi-legal?" Is that like being quasi-pregnant? Pretty much is, or it isn't legal, I'd say.

Be smart ... some other poor slob get sued

Now that is the sort of shining beacon of ethics that you'd think would convice recording artists that there aren't really any pirates out there to worry about, no siree!

Re:Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[Bodysurf]

Now that is the sort of shining beacon of ethics that you'd think would convice recording artists that there aren't really any pirates out there to worry about, no siree!

You apparently miss the point.

The point isn't whether you are a pirate or not, or even whether pirates exist. We all know that pirates exist.

And that just like speeding, 99.9% of the public has done it at some point in their life.

The point is, unless you are totally confident in your ability, and more importantly, don't mind wasting your money and time defending your purchase of recordable media in a CIVIL court of law, you may be wise to not purchase it in a way that leaves an electronic paper trail.

IOW, let someone else be a more visible target than you.

Re:Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[Photon Ghoul]

I mean, who, other than a pirate, would buy a couple hundred blank CDRs/DVDRs?

This is a good point. And I have an answer. There are multitude of underground record labels (more indy than indy) and self-releasing artists that use audio CDr recordings as a cheap and fast way of publishing their own music. Usually these are done on the blank-topped or ready-to-print CDrs. Perfectly legit and it will be pretty sad when that scene is killed because of the RIAA's anti-piracy tactics.

Re:Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[ScentCone]

You apparently miss the point

Er, back atcha.

The point is, when you essentially offer some coaching to precisely those people who are pirating stuff, it just smells bad to the wider audience. And obviously, if it wasn't going on, on a huge scale, there wouldn't be any interest in trotting purchase records into a suit in the first place. Believe me, I'd hate, with a passion, to get dragged into a suit just so I could explain that I use a couple hundred blank CDs every month doing database backups.

Re:Pay CASH for those blank CDR/DVDRs!

[Bodysurf]

The point is, when you essentially offer some coaching to precisely those people who are pirating stuff, it just smells bad to the wider audience.

More important that that -- the advice I gave was perhaps even more important to those who have completely legal uses for purchases of large quantities of recordable media.

People like those who burn off dozens of copies of church service audio/video sermons weekly onto CDRs/DVDRs. Underground bands who burn off their songs onto dozens upon dozens of blank CDs to get their music out there.

You might think it'd be easy to just give them one of the above excuses. Bottom-line: They will think you are full of shit. They'll say, that's the excuse every pirate uses.

History is quite clear: These big corporations have no problems carpet-bombing, via civil litigation, anyone they suspect of engaging in piracy. Their philosophy is IF someone is innocent, then they will have their chance to tell it to a judge/jury, and if they are found "not liable", well then, great for them. Problem is, to litigate yourself "not liable", costs much more than settling. And the preponderance of evidence is 51% in civil court. No 5th ammendment and no court-appointed attorney. Pro-se? That's like doing open-heart surgery on yourself.

So my larger point is: Pirate or non-pirate -- you do NOT want to get into the crosshairs of a sue-them-all-let-the-jury-sort-them-out, corporation with a bunch of attorneys with nothing better to do litigate with maximum zeal and effort.

Pirate or non-pirate: Don't leave a paper trail. If you buy recordable media in quantities that can even remotely be construed as "quantities only a pirate would buy" even if for 100% legit, then do it via CASH and CARRY. To not, leaves you open to the very real risk of civil lawsuit.

Next target please

[chia_monkey]

And now the RIAA is going after their next target. Instead of changing their own business methods and adapting to the times, they'd rather stick with their stone-age methodology and try to gouge the hell out of everyone (artists, music fans, and everyone between). First, they tried P2P. Now they'll probably have lists of people who buy blank CDs from Best Buy and start suing them (I wish I was being sarcastic...). Next, they'll probably figure out that computers are doing this and they'll just do a carpet bombing run and sue every registered computer owner. Seems like it would be much easier and cheaper to just change their ways...

But ...?

[ouaibe]

Let me guess, from which medium does the unauthorized downloaded music come from ? I do not think it comes in major part from the music services such as iTunes... So how do they manage to analyze such statistics in the first place anyway ? It sounds a lot like an excuse to revive the old CD protection war...

This Is Why They Don't Sue Philips

[Master of Transhuman]

Because Phillips makes CD recording equipment for consumers which allow you to pop a CD in your player and record it on another drive in the same device.

And they don't sue Philips for contributing to "piracy" because Philips as a company is bigger than the entire US music industry.

From the Philips Web Site:

Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands is one of the world's biggest electronics companies, as well as the largest in Europe, with 159,709 employees in over 60 countries and sales in 2004 of Eur 30.3 billion.

Whereas GLOBAL music sales were worth $32 billion USD in 2003.

Same reason they don't sue Sony for making the same sort of consumer devices.

Why the massively larger tech industry feels compelled to bow down before these morons is beyond me. Tell them to take a fucking hike.

The Mob certainly is telling them that.

Re:This Is Why They Don't Sue Philips

[Dunbal]

They don't sue the manufacturers of devices that can copy CD's because these companies can afford to defend themselves legally. It's easier to sue the little guy, push him or her around with the threat of litigation, and then magnanimously "settle" for around $3000. Legal extortion at its best.

Re:This Is Why They Don't Sue Philips

[Anonymous Coward]

well actually the reason they don't sue Sony is because it would be kinda retarded to sue yourself.
(Sony Records is a member of the RIAA.)

Re:This Is Why They Don't Sue Philips

[Tim C]

One quibble - that sales figure for Philips *is* a global figure; the Eur is for Euros, not European sales. Unless, of course, by "GLOBAL music sales" you mean all sales globally, not just those of the members of the RIAA...

Either way, yes, Philips is at least comparable in size to the members of the RIAA, making it a rather less cut and dried outcome, especially if the other tech companies start weighing in on Philips's side.

Same reason they don't sue Sony for making the same sort of consumer devices.

Sony Music is a member of the RIAA, and so they are unlikely to be suing Sony Electronics any time soon, no matter how much money they make...

Re:This Is Why They Don't Sue Philips

[Master of Transhuman]

That's actually a good point, and it's been brought up before by others in exactly this context - that Sony makes music and also makes devices that can easily be used to "pirate" music.

It just emphasizes my point. Sony is just the most schizophrenic example.

Re:This Is Why They Don't Sue Philips

[Master of Transhuman]

Yes, I matched Philips global sales with global music sales as far as I could tell from a quick Google. Not very precise, but it makes the point.

Philips Electronics made only about $177 million in operating profit and over $900 million in net profit last quarter, whereas Warner Music lost about the same money, losing $35 million excluding one time expenses and $175 million total loss.

As for Sony, they're the most schizophrenic example of what I was saying, and others have mentioned this before me in the same context.

Do it for the kids!

[LWATCDR]

The RIAA got busted for price fixing. They then paid their debt to society buy giving crap CDs to schools and Libraries.

This is the same RIAA that sells our children Devil's music!
Where is the extreme right when you need them??

Re:Do it for the kids!

[halivar]

This is the same RIAA that sells our children Devil's music!
Where is the extreme right when you need them??

We've got a plan. Make sure Metallica makes so much money they'll never want to bother putting out another devil-filled album to influence our children. For the greater good, and all.

Down with CD-R's!!!

Re:Do it for the kids!

[LWATCDR]

The funny thing is I really do not like the influence that the media is having on the kids. The difference is that I do not worry about Metallica. It is Spears, Donald Trump, and the TV show friends I want to steer my kids clear of. I find them more offensive to family values than Metallica.

FP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

first post!! whippitty whappitty dipsy doodle!yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaa i win.

Damn kids!

[MarkGriz]

"When you are talking about significantly large amounts of data (hundreds of GBs to TBs) it is actually faster and cheaper to put it on a hard drive and FedEx or (insert your favorite delivery company here) and ship it"

Damn kids and your fancy "hard drives". In my day, when we pirated music we did it with a stationwagon full of 9-track tapes.

Stupid people do more.

[xmorg]

I know people who dont know what an enter key is on a computer, and have CD cases full of burned cds.

Also, you dont need a computer to dupe, just a cdburner.

Yup, But I really dont know how they can track it, its not like you can login to someones house and see who is bringing cd's over to be dubbed. Are they estimating?

1. Sales are down, so they must be piracy afoot.
2. Take the ratio of Geeks to "normal" people.
3. If the ratio of "normals" is greater than geeks, then the majority of piracy must be hand traded media.

Re:Stupid people do more.

[kz45]

1. Sales are down, so they must be piracy afoot

You can't tell me there isn't a correlation between p2p networks and cheap cdrs in the hands of the masses and the recent loss in sales (and im saying over the last 5 years). The fact of the matter is: people just aren't buying music anymore because they can either 1) download it for free from the internet or 2) burn it from a friend. Before p2p, people were forced to buy music if they wanted to listen to it. Why bother buying music if you can download it for free and burn it onto a CD? (and the quality is near-perfect). The main reason people are downloading music is because they are too cheap and lazy to go out and buy it. (proof: itunes sells songs for .99 and p2p networks are bigger than ever)

I can't even remember the last time I or any of my friends have bought music. I only stopped using various p2p networks because of the RIAA scare tactics. But im not trying to fool myself or other people into believing that what im doing is right.

Eventually, piracy causes the recording industry (or whoever's IP is being infringed) to lose money. This is because more and more people see it as worthless and aren't willing to pay for it.

Im not justifying the RIAAs actions or prices, but I don't think the people infringing on copyrights should be justified either.

Re:Stupid people do more.

[xmorg]

I realize that you are too young to remember this, but before p2p we had Cassette taps. Go to your mommies house and check the drawers or boxes in the attic. you will find lots of little "tape" type disk looking thingies that have music on them. Before p2p people bought cassettes and pirated music by hand..... ahh those were the days.

Re:Stupid people do more.

[kz45]

I realize that you are too young to remember this, but before p2p we had Cassette taps. Go to your mommies house and check the drawers or boxes in the attic. you will find lots of little "tape" type disk looking thingies that have music on them. Before p2p people bought cassettes and pirated music by hand..... ahh those were the days.

and before cassetts they had 8-track tapes and 45's. Im afraid you need to go to your mommies house.

you never read my post, did you.

cassetes could not be traded with thousands of other people within a few hours. With cassetes, it wasn't a problem. With p2p..it is.

Dear Record Executive:

[Infamous Coward]

I am your customer. When I was younger, I copied friends CDs onto tapes. If I had not copied them, I would never have bought them, because I didn't have much money. You didn't lose any sales to me. But I got hooked on music. It has become what I am sure will be a lifelong obsession.

Now I am grown up. I have a good job and I make decent money. I buy CDs constantly. I buy so many that it is hard for me to keep up with listening to them sometimes. Consider this very carefully:

If a CD is copy protected it has no value to me. None.

I buy CDs because:

1)They have the best sound quality of formats that are unlocked...

2)...and I need an unlocked format because I rip everything into my iPod.

3)The CD is a fantastic archive. If not mistreated, it will last the rest of my life. My computer could explode and burn, but the archive is right there in the rack for the new computer.

4)I will never struggle with new formats. I can re-rip this audio into whatever new compression standard comes along.

5)I will never struggle with DRM. I bought the music and it will be mine forever, even if Apple, Microsoft and Sony all go out of business.

Here I am. I am your customer. Do you still even see me?

Do you want my money or not?

How are they making this claim?

[Kelbear]

Did they just pull people aside and ask them, "What's your favorite way of pirating our stuff?".

I can't really think of any valid way they can assert the numbers here. Frankly I'm guessing they're just wildly pulling numbers out of the air trying to find one that's plausible before stating it as a "study".

Really, I'm guessing most of the piraters are too lazy to carry the stuff over to their friends.

More Fabricated Statistics

[ewhac]

I wish these mendacious little sh*ts would get their story straight. Is unsanctioned copying over the Internet the biggest threat to their industry or not?

Or is it CD copying?

Or is it Asian counterfeiting rings?

Or is it little green men from Ganymede selling replicators on the black market?

C'mon, guys, if you want the "theft" meme to be taken even remotely seriously by intelligent people, you need to at least keep your story consistent.

Schwab

Re:Mod parent up

[Bastian]

Finally, a voice of reason in this debate. And it only took, what - eight or so years for the P2P side of the debate, and a few decades for the recordable media side?

Really?

[ankhcraft]

And how are the numbers tracked here? Is it based on an assumption of what percentage of audio media is used to record media which is then given to someone who is not the copyright holder? How staggering inaccurate.

Additionally, enough people make more than one backup of a CD, because their CD's get scratched often enough.

News Flash: Comptuers Are Used....

[nurb432]

Next the *AA will claim that most illegal copying is done on *gasp* those 'evil general purpose computers' and we must do something about that.

We must eliminate any freedom that people have to choose what they can execute or what media they 'consume'. We cant have 'the people' running around using these evil 'computers' to copy our stuff...

Besides, its 'for the children'...

Re:News Flash: Comptuers Are Used....

[Dunbal]

Next the *AA will claim that most illegal copying is done on *gasp* those 'evil general purpose computers'

      They've already managed that. This is what "Trusted computing" and DRM is all about...

They seem to be missing the point...

[argent]

Music industry figures were grumbling that Apple's apparent unwillingness to license its FairPlay DRM technology - or, more likely we suspect, do so at a price the music industry is willing to pay - prevents them from creating music files that can be transferred to and played on an iPod.

That's funny. They seem to have been doing a pretty good job of creating music files that can be transferred to and played on my iPod. I get them from the iTunes Music Store.

Why would I be interested in buying them on a CD instead? It's not just Apple that has no interest in buying less-than-CD-quality music on CD.

The real "fly in the ointment" here is the fact that Macs are not running Windows, and so can ignore the copy protection that Microsoft has chosen to honor. I rather suspect that Linux will be equally happy to not comply with the RIAA's imaginary copy protection. I wonder how long before someone makes up a "copy your CDs" image that can be loaded to a USB dongle, and boots into a copy of Linux with a pre-configured ripper.

Re:They seem to be missing the point...

[Ripper_171]

"I wonder how long before someone makes up a "copy your CDs" image that can be loaded to a USB dongle, and boots into a copy of Linux with a pre-configured ripper." are you refering to SLAX http://slax.linux-live.org/

Re:They seem to be missing the point...

[m50d]

Huh? Slax includes cdparanoia but you can hardly expect joe average to use that. K3b has a "copy cd" option, but anyone with a cd burner will have easy CD creator or nero, both of which can do the same just as easily.

Re:They seem to be missing the point...

[Ripper_171]

I guess I was getting more at the point of booting up your system from the CDROM (then toram if you only have one drive) or a USB drive and being presented with a system setup that can efficiently copy a music CD. K3B is as easy to use as Nero/Easy CD, but the user is in a Linux environment, which can only help efforts to get around DRM schemes.

I would agree that rebooting just to rip would be asking a bit much, but the original post was giving a name to the 'image' argent mentioned.
Also, SLAX is not the only such option, just the one I have been playing with most recently.

Building a Worse Mousetrap

[Doc Ruby]

The RIAA hates its customers. The only way for an industry in that position to survive is through monopoly power. Which is a waste of time, now that the (Internet) cat is out of the bag. Not to mention the spilled (CD-R) milk. Sounds like the RIAA's members are doomed, because they're barking up the wrong tree, while consumers are petting all the pussy we can handle.

In the end...

[Transcendent]

...when the internet packets are constantly monitored by the RIAA, all forms of media are ROM or highly volatile, iPods are outlawed, and radio is replaced with personal, encrypted subscriptions to broadcast the music directly into a chip implanted into the users ear (insuring that they do not broadcast without license), the RIAA will go after the schoolyard kids and the remaining music listeners who accidentally recite lyrics from their copyrighted works, ensuring that not a single note or phrase from their property gets used without them seeing their glorious monetary rewards.

</1984ish hell>

You can't always win. When will they learn?

Here we go again...

[codefool]

It was just ~25 years ago that MCA went to the wall claiming that video cassettes would only be used to steal movies, and wanted fee assessed to every VCR and blank cassette sold as a proactive remedy. This went to the supreme court, who wisely (stangely enough) ruled that just because a technology can be used for illegal activities does not mean that it will be used for illegal activities. And told them to go away. Now we hear the rattle of that snake rearing its head again...

Funny, though, if they had won would they have the immense video market they have today?

WTF--I pay them royalties, how is this "piracy?"

[dpbsmith]

Hey, WTF?

Whenever I buy an "Audio CD-R" or "Music CD-R" the price includes a royalty payment. The royalty payment is set at 2% of the manufacturer's revenue (not profit, revenue) and deposited with the U. S. Copyright Office, which in turn pays it into other funds in a complicated way.

According to the RIAA's own frickin' website, two thirds of it goes into a "Sound Recordings Fund" administered by an entity called the AARC which distributes it to artists, and the rest gets distributed to copyright holders.

So how the *&$%&! is this piracy? What's their beef, anyway? They're not getting enough? It should all go to the RIAA instead of some it going to artists? Nothing should ever be copied by anyone, no way, no how?

I mean, just what is their problem?

Re:My life completely changed when I got a DVD bur

[Dunbal]

But for those of you who don't support the RIAA, grow some balls and stop buying their products.

I don't buy their products. I downloa...

Thought I'd never see the day

[overshoot]

that I was downright delighted to see anyone so totally WinWashed that they built all of their strategy around Microsoft and ignored the rest of the world.

Well, that day is here. I not only welcome but applaud the RIAA's decision to base all of their DRM plans on MSWindows while ignoring other platforms.

so 45% of all music

[Anonymous Coward]

is illeagle file-shared or copied... gee...

RIAA Zombies

[kfg]

Braaaaaaaains! Braaaaaaaains!

KFG

I got one word to say to this

[SupaDupaDave]

DUH!!!

The stats will change again

[jurt1235]

Don't worry RIAA, one day it will be as you thought it was, and that online piracy will be bigger than the offline version.

Hey, somebody has to comfort them!

Not me!

[theraccoon]

music fans acquire almost twice as many songs from illegally duplicated CDs as from unauthorized downloads

Actually, I personally acquire almost five times as many songs from unauthorized downloads than from illegally duplicated CDs, so how about dem apples?

Dog bites man

[opencity]

Every working musician has known this since Napster. Unless you're so succesful you've become a corporation (Metallica) file sharing is actually good for your business: free publicity. What is devaluing corporate music (besides quality control or lack thereof) is kids burning disks.

If, for some reason, teenagers want the new Korn disk, they pool they're money and buy one, burn two. Can you blaim them when a little pile of digital plastic is $17 at retail?

While it's old news on /. that the new digital free for all is probably good for actual players (and bad for the corporate lawyer types ... choak ... sob ...) what isn't noticed is the audio techs that are now out of work. It's easier to make records with engineers and assistant engineers helping, but, as every professional engineer has found in the last few years, those days are over. There is no corporate money to pay some guy to set up expensive microphones all day on someone elses record. The recording studio industry of the 20th century is going the way of the hat makers.

These days, rather than raising the money and paying to record and mix in a dedicated room with some professionals, I track and mix most everything at home.

Good or bad for the music? You decide (probably both). Like it or not that's how we're going to do it now.

Aside to any audio techs still reading: I recently heard of an auction where a Studer 2" machine went for 8 grand (!?!?). I heard after the auction or I'd have a Studer in my living room.

Re:Dog bites man

[NeoSkandranon]

If, for some reason, teenagers want the new Korn disk, they pool they're money and buy one, burn two. Can you blaim them when a little pile of digital plastic is $17 at retail?

What planet are you from? The teenagers I know borrow a copy and burn it for whoever's interested, or just download the whole thing.

Re:Dog bites man

[Anonymous Coward]

> What planet are you from?

So you troll while making the parents' point.

Genius.

Obviously only computer people pirate!

[fallacy]

Err, how come RIAA are only (close-mindedly) pointing the figure at recordable CDs as the source of piracy? Are they a memory-selective organisation to not remember those little spinny analogue things which contained an antiquated media called "tape"? Hell, given that one of the RIAA's original tasks/roles was to define standards for not only tape, but (gosh!) CDs (Source: RIAA entry @ WikiPedia) then aren't they indirectly to blame for such a allegedly pirate-friendly media?

They also need to be careful with respect to DRM. As the article states, it's only really the Microsoft platform that supports DRM and thus, ironically, by employing such copy-protection schemes will likely cause some buyers to return their CDs for a refund, and therefore loose the money for the artist, given that a lot of people do not necessarily listen to music straight from the CD. I'm an example of that - my (non-computer) CD player bearly gets a look in these days. I buy a CD not only for the sound quality but to ensure that I pay what I get for (sort of a backwards sentence!) However, I will then rip it to OGG etc for use on my computer and portable music player and the CD then gets stored away.

I download music. I find it a great way to discover different bands etc. If I like the music I buy the CD. Yes, I actually go out and buy that dangerous media of CD. If I don't like the music, it gets deleted there and then.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for payment to the artists etc. I fully support it, which is borne out in my buying of the music if I like it. However, it's the overstated/exaggerated comments by the RIAA that really annoy me and lead me to believe what a generally screwed up world we live in at times. If the RIAA are so concerned about ensuring that artists receive their relevant monies, then do the RIAA soley follow this practice/creed outside of the music industry (only buying FairTradeproducts, for example)?

Re:Obviously only computer people pirate!

[fallacy]

And another point: what's RIAA's take on buying second-hand CDs? Is this also piracy?

keanunet

[jlapier]

Don't forget keanunet, with a capacity of 60GB (I think).

Theft Arguement

[nurb432]

Sorry, but copyright infringement is NOT theft.

Its infringement of copyrights.. Theft is something different.

Agreed it may be illegal, but at least get it right so your argument might actually have some weight.

Until you do, you are just 'yet another clueless ranter'.

Re:Theft Arguement

[Anonymous Coward]

I never asserted that the two were the same.

Just that a lot of people seem to focus on that particular nuance, and claim it as a defense for their actions.

Re:Theft Arguement

[Anonymous Coward]

>Just that a lot of people seem to focus on that particular nuance, and claim it as a defense for their actions.

But it ISN'T just a nuance, it indicitive of someone who doesn't have a clue. If you plan to argue about something and you make boldfaced lies in your argument you are just not up to the task of arguing.

Pointing out the lies of people without a clue is often the easiest way to strip the wheat from the chaff in an argument and boil it down to the real issue, or simply rid the argument of a troll.

Re:Theft Arguement

[Dunbal]

Sorry, but copyright infringement is NOT theft.

      Of course it's not theft. The penalties for copyright infringement are much steeper!

Re:Theft Arguement

[why-is-it]

you are just 'yet another clueless ranter'.

Just because you dispute one part of his +5 Insightful opinion, you feel compelled to write the whole thing off as clueless ranting?

The PP was incredibly insightful and provided a much needed, common sense evaluation of the current impasse. Your attempted flame was very weak by /. standards, although it did prove goldspider's point.

get it right so your argument might actually have some weight.

Far better IMHO that someone makes a useful (albeit flawed) contribution to the discussion as opposed to your childish sophistry.

Re:Theft Arguement

[drew]

Looks like you need some reading comprehension courses. The parent never said that copyright infringement is theft. He stated (correctly) that the common excuse "copyright infringement isn't theft" does nothing to justify the fact that copyright infringement is illegal.

Re:Theft Arguement

[silicon not in the v]

Sorry, but copyright infringement is NOT theft.

*whoosh* You're safe on that one. The irony of your comment apparently flew several feet over your head, so you were not in any real danger.

It was pretty funny to see you stomp right up and stick out your little 4-year-old bottom lip in a pout and say, "copyright infringement is NOT theft."

I guess you didn't notice how he was pointing out that it's a tired line that is just overused as a pseudo-excuse for downloading music people don't have a right to--call that what you will.

Agreed it may be illegal, but at least get it right so your argument might actually have some weight.
Until you do, you are just 'yet another clueless ranter'.

Uh-huh. And until you stop parroting that stupid line, you're yet another redundant person proving his point.

Re:Theft Arguement

[lgw]

Someone is either clueless or lieing, they can't be both.

And you're still stealing music, whatever rationalizations you want to come up with.

Re:Theft Arguement

[nurb432]

Bite Me. How is that for redundancy?

Personally tho, even if it was theft, i wouldnt care. I do as i please. Anytime, anywhere.

Re:Theft Arguement

[Travelsonic]

And you're still stealing music, whatever rationalizations you want to come up with.

And factually speaking, that is only an opinion, factually speaking you may be breaking the law but theft isn't the law.

See? Repetitive no-progress arguments (inflammitory?) can/will work all ways.

Re:Theft Arguement

[mightybaldking]

Actually, theft is a felony, a crime against the state which is punishable under criminal law. Copyright infringement, until things went haywire in the last ten years, has historically been a civil suit. You couldn't go to jail for it until you violated court orders, in which case, you would be imprisoned for that.

Re:Theft Arguement

[Trogre]

Imperial Officer: The rebels seem to have evaded us, Lord Vader.

Vader: Do they still have the stolen Death Star plans?

Imperial Officer: Well technically they're not stolen as much as infringed upo- *ack* *gag* *choke*

Re:Theft Arguement

[lgw]

True enough, but where I grew up the opinion that you didn't pay someone what he was owed meant you got shot in the face. Taking-without-paying is "stealing" in my book, but whatever *you* call it it's still taking-without-paying.

the other day

[WormholeFiend]

I bought this cool t-shirt with a tape cassette graphic printed in the front.

Now having read this slashdot article, it feels just like wearing a white on black jolly roger t-shirt.

Arrrr

Re:the other day

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a "radio taping is killing the music industry t-shirt" last week.. very true

Re:Such a tax *was* added to certain types of CD-R

[MindStalker]

Hmm I've never seen this before. Please notify the world of model of your CD player. So we can avoid this like the plague.

One at a time

[behindthewall]

Too early to tell for sure, but it sounds on the surface like the RIAA is taking on perceived threats one at a time.

Networked file sharing has had a significant dent put into it. Further, iTunes and the like are rapidly growing "blessed" network paradigms.

So, they're switching their "there is evil among us" mantra and resources to disc-to-disc burning.

A logical next step. They ultimately want control that amounts to per person, per item licensing. Copying, sharing, even just loaning your friend your disc, all cut into their revenue stream. Never mind what the law says about these activities; for them, it's all bad business (or so they believe). And if they can get away with it, they will eliminate all these possibilities.

(P.S. If their controls in effect make you continually repurchase licenses, e.g. every time you upgrade your PC, I don't think they're going to mind, as long as the legal and PR outfall doesn't hurt their bottom line.)

Taking on networked file sharing made sense when Napster (literally, or the paradigm) was present and prevalent. Some coding, traffic analysis, and legal manipulation was sufficient for them to effectively attack it.

Controlling disc-to-disc burning is going to require the cooperation or coercion of hardware and media manufacturers, which involves perhaps more effort and certainly more lead time.

The first few attempts at copy controls were sorry affairs. But they've gotten somewhat better, and have proven themselves to be de facto accepted (slashdot "boycotts" not withstanding). Things are going to become much uglier and more effective when controls are -- voluntarily or forcibly -- placed into the firmware.

There's a reason the RIAA and similar spending a lot on legislators. Good tech or bad tech, if it's the law, most corporate entities will go along. They'll have no choice.

Re:WTF--I pay them royalties, how is this "piracy?

[Anne Thwacks]

As an American, your supposed to know when someone is "making you an offer you can't refuse"!

All your base are belong to the subwoofer!

Re:My life completely changed when I got a DVD bur

[jx100]

The problem with a boycott is that its losses could easily be considered as due to piracy. So, if you're going to boycott, figure out some way to make it *absolutely clear* that you're doing so.

Little Jack Horner

[robbway]

Like the nursery rhyme, the RIAA seems to be putting in a thumb and pulling out a plum and then making the irrational conclusion that "What a good boy am I!"

From the article: According to Bainwol, in turn citing figures from market watcher NPD, 29 per cent of the recorded music obtained by listeners last year came from content copied onto recordable media. Only 16 per cent came from illegal downloads.

I realize NPD estimates shares of markets, but where is 29% from? They clearly didn't count them nor could they know how many CD-R/RW's went towards non-music data. That means they must have done a poll or pulled it out of their ass (instead of a Christmas pie) based on blank media sales. I hope they did a poll, but they will get unreliable results because they'd have to ask if you have any copyright-infringing CD-Rs and RWs.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Bah Horse Hockeys

[GuyverDH]

Again, I state to RIAA...

Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

Those people who download *undocumented* copies of music, or burn tracks to make their mixes (even if tracks come from friends CDs) are the ones who would have done similiar things in the old days.

Do you remember the cassette tape? Radios? Boom-boxes that combined both?

Remember all the crying and nashing of teeth that you used while predicting the *END* of the music industry because people could tape right off the air?

People who are going to try and obtain *FREE* copies of music are going to do so regardless of measures you take to try and prevent it from happening.

These are the same people, that if left with no means of copying, would *NEVER* buy your product to begin with.

You've lost *NOTHING* and pissed off most of us who have purchased every stitch of music that we've liked.

Remember that, the more difficult you make it for legal, law-abiding customers to use your product, the fewer law-abiding customers there will be, *PERIOD*.

It's your own throat that you're slitting, wake up before you choke on your own blood.

The start of a new business model

[jfengel]

There are several alternative business models being tried. Apple's iTMS is one, though I have yet to see a major artist try the iTunes-only route. Even those songs have a "CD hole", but the first step to eliminating the CD hole is releasing music only in its DRM'ed form. I betcha that sooner or later Apple will reveal that there are songs you can download that it will refuse to let you burn. That's one new business model.

I didn't say you were going to like it. I just said they were working on it.

There's also a lot of music released without the RIAA, from local and regional bands. You can get that stuff from myspace, from CDs sold on their web sites and at concerts, and even with their blessing from P2P. (I have it straight from a musician friend of mine that you shouldn't have to pay to download one song.)

Of course you've never heard of any of these, because the RIAA's business model depends on you accepting what they advertise to you. If you want to deal a blow to the RIAA's business model, go out to your local club or browse the web for a while. And you can do it legally, too.

A bad business model is its own punishment. Let them flounder. Unless you happen to like what they're feeding you and you just don't feel like paying for it, in which case I call you "hypocrite". Opting out of the RIAA's business model isn't at all hard.

In 2007: RIAA gets law to force sales

[denis-The-menace]

After trying unsuccessfully to sue users into buying their products, outlawing all filesharing products (P2P, Torrents, FTP, etc.) and license all users of blank media, the RIAA have obtained a new power to force all citizens to buy one album per year. Proof of purchase will be required to be stapled to you income tax receipt. Those failing to due so will have $30 deducted from their income tax. A new Department Of Homeland Artists will be created to ensure compliance.

RIAA spokes person:
"This will ensure that crap..err quality music will be available for generations to come"

Re:In 2007: RIAA gets law to force sales

[WxChem]

In future (2010) news...

President Mitch Bainwol and Vice-President Cary Sherman, former RIAA CEO and President, respectively, announce plans to invade the entire Eastern Hemisphere...

In his announcement, President Bainwol states, "We cannot tolerate the massive loss in sales ... we must protect our artists and deep-pockets from this horrible threat!"

Re:Customer

[Overzeetop]

Fuck You!
Thank you for buying our product.
Fuck You!
We appreciate your honesty and support for our artists.
Fuck You!
We would like you to enjoy your music any way you like, and
Fuck You!
only ask that you pay a reasonable sum for each form you use.
Fuck You!
As each different way to listen to music offers you a
Fuck You!
different experience, we believe a minor fee
Fuck You!
is justified.
Fuck You!
Fuck You!
Fuck You!
We apologise for any inconvenience which our content enablers have caused
Fuck You!
you, and hope you continue to support
Fuck You!
the artists which you have come to love
Fuck You!
by buying their albums through us.
Fuck You!
Fuck You!
Fuck You!
Sincerely,
Record Executive
Fuck You!

RIAA business Plan

[sxmjmae]

1. Turn out cookie cutter media which has been scientifically proven to be a guaranteed number one top charting song.
2. Lobby government claiming your scientifically formula chart topers are not make enough money so it must be pirates (or maybe even terrorist) fault.
3. Alienate your customer base by calling them all criminals and attempting to prosecute them as such.
4. ???
5. Profit

Independent music...

[utopianfiat]

There are a lot of independent bands out there that SUPPORT sharing their shows and albums just so they can get some widespread exposure.
I can say that ever since I was invited to a special private torrent tracker for non-RIAA-only music, I have gone to more concerts, bought more music, and supported more artists through purchase of swag than I ever had before.
I'm not going to link to the tracker here (for slashdot's sake, their bw bills are high enough...)

Doctor Evil, That Already Happened.

[argent]

That's what things like Secure Audio Path is all about. Microsoft and Intel and the hardware vendors are working hard to keep our computers from BEING "general purpose computers".

And not only that...

[Cmdr Niggerdale]

The RIAA and MPAA basically own Congress. How long before a piece of legislation mandating the broadcast flag is attached as a rider to some totally unrelated bill, thus allowing it to slide through and be signed into law before we know what hit us? It'll happen sooner or later, trust me.

But how much of the CD-R music is illegal?

[CustomDesigned]

I have never pirated any music, and yet all the CD's we listen to are on recordable media. I've downloaded dozens of CDs from Magnatune, and when I buy a disc, I make a copy and play that. The kids have this habit of handling discs after coating their hands with a honey/dirt mixture, and I like to be able to replace them. I've even copied my favorite cassette tapes to CD (complete with tape hiss). When my daughter comes home with a CD-R from a friend, I immediately destroy it along with a lecture about how when the RIAA sues us, the settlement will come out of her savings. She has to borrow the original. (Of course her friend just keeps the CD-R copy, but I can't help that.) In short, I go out of my way to avoid copyright violations. Furthermore, I record my own and my daughter's music and have that on CD-R.

Would my recordable media count in this study? I notice they don't mention how much of that recordable media represents actual illegal copying. I guess you're supposed to assume that anyone with a CD-R is a criminal.

On similar lines, my dad has been archiving all of our family 8mm movie film to DVD.

Recordable Media a P2P source?

[Josilot]

Does the 29% include the CD that little Johnny Everyteen downloaded illegally and made a copy for 6 of his buddies? Or does he have to have paid for the CD and then made a copy of it in order for it to count?

Untrue:

[Anonymous Coward]

I use my cd-r to burn new distros of linux; copy data; create system repair cds for windhose customers; and to rip the tv shows i've downloaded via BT >:}

I am evil, feel me sneer.

Threat?

[Eminence]

Recordable Media a Bigger Threat Than Filesharing?

It's interesting to see that most people from the corporate world view new emerging technologies and change in general as a threat rather than an opportunity.

the average...

[KillShill]

customer becoming aware of all the billions the cartels stole as a result of brib^H^H^H^ err lobbying congress. yes, in this case, steal is the right and correct word. tens of thousands of works would be public domain now had it not been for those meddling cartels.

once the average person realizes what copyright is and how it's been so utterly misused, then the cartels will have their judgement day.

everything is else a smokescreen, so people don't address the real and actual issue. copyright law.

everything else is a smokescreen or red herring if you will. remember that. it has nothing to do with file sharing, recordable media ( what other kind of media is there?). when they give back the hundreds of billions of dollars and return copyright law back to less than 10 years, no criminalization for non-profit infringement, no DMCA, etc then and only then will they get it.

actions speak louder than words but words are their only weapons (cept for congress). learn the meaning of their weapons then they lose their power.

the scales of copyright are so EXTREMELY in the favor of copyright "holders" that it's stifling actual commerce and hurts "progress of science and arts". they have failed so miserably at their end of the bargain that something very drastic needs to be done, some of which i've detailed above.

Do I Cry or Do I Laugh

[guilhermesa]

These people are a bunch of ignorant useless shits! They truly can care less about the rest of the world. Instead of acting like a father to all and provide an example, they perform ugly stunts that leaves me disgust.

Is it my own senses or do they keep releasing these reports strategically timed targeting the innocents? What an objective. What a bunch of losers.

This is again another example of why the freakin market doesn't progress like I thought it should.

They should be given 5 minutes to make a new choice for a profession, otherwise be sent out of orbit because I don't appreciate incompetence when it comes to world culture and their role in it.

CD piracy effects sales more

[teh_dg]

I assume the figures for recordable-media piracy are propped up heavily from countries where broadband is rare while pirate stalls are common. While in Moscow, I couldnt aviod the stalls selling pirate music, software and games were all over the place - especially in the subways but even right outside the enterance to shopping malls.

I'd also expect that this piracy has a much stronger effect (by ratio) on actual sales. Whereas obtaining MP3 is causal and it's so easy to obtain a song you're not yet particularily interested in, getting a pirated CD takes considered effort and is more of a substitute for shopping.

I can easily envision someone downloading MP3 to check out songs for later purchase, but if you've got an exact duplicate (especially if you've paid for it), few would bother following up with a ligit purchase. There's almost no difference between a pirated CD and a purchased one, bar packaging.

Related News: Paper a Big Copyright Theft Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

In Related News:

Article and speech writers find uncoated paper is a a huge threat for copyright theft.

Why should US pay for China Piracy?

[WillAffleckUW]

seriously?

until China imposes a recordable media tax on all their MP3 flash cards that can record music and dupe it, why should we in the US give a hoot?

There is only one child in this argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, the 12 year old the RIAA sued.

"Piracy" increases sales! Roger McGuinn(sp? The old "Byrds" band from the 60s) said outright that "piracy" via the old, dead Napster revitalized his career. The labels had writen him off.

This is the REAL reason they want to kill P2P, not "piracy." P2P DOES affect the labels bottom line.

Now, this sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't. The majors have radio sewn up (see "payola"). The radio plays what the RIAA labels tell it to.

But there's a new kid - P2P. If I download Metallica, I'm likely to buy Matallica. However, if I download someone not on the radio, they don't get that Metallica sale because I already spent the fifteen bucks on two indie CDs.

It's not about lost sales to "thieves," it's about lost sales to the competetion.

P2P is to the RIAA what FOSS is to Microsoft: a possible monopoly breaker. You can see why they hate it.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[lowe0]

If that were the case, they'd flood P2P with their own music. They're not.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[Thuktun]

If that were the case, they'd flood P2P with their own music. They're not.

Why join 'em when you can beat 'em?

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[Thuktun]

P2P is to the RIAA what FOSS is to Microsoft: a possible monopoly breaker. You can see why they hate it.

This seems plausible, since Microsoft seems to support SCO's noises about FOSS (Linux in particular) stealing IP from closed-source projects.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[happyemoticon]

Your logic is flawed. GP says that P2P grants independent artists exposure that they would not otherwise have, which translates to sales. Label artists already have plenty of exposure - in fact, perfect exposure, because they can partically determine who fails and who succeeds depending on who they decide to promote. Those in a strong or monopolistic market position always use different tactics than those in a weak position.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[mark-t]

It may very well be the case that if you download Metallica, you are likely to buy Metallica, but this is not the way it is with most people that download illegaly shared materials.

Most people that download stuff illegally don't give a rip about copyright law, or even the artist. They just want stuff that for all intents and purposes appears to be free at the moment, and they'll help themselves to it for as long as they can, as long as it doesn't appear to hurt anyone they personally know.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were the case, they'd flood P2P with their own music. They're not.

Word of mouth is a two edged sword.

To generalize a bit, there are two main products. There's quality music. It's like good pie or a good movie--it pretty much sells itself. I suspect the labels have no problem seeing this on P2P and may even be seeding it.

The other product is the manufactured "boy band"/"Hillary Duff" crap (who, in an inexplicable but amusing bit of mistiming had her own name brand tupperware at Zellers long before anyone up here had ever heard her music). That's more like a Sausage McMuffin or Battlefield Earth. It looks tasty but once you've had a bite you'll never buy it again (apologies to SMM lovers you sick bastards). The only way they can pawn that dreck is to ensure that you don't have a chance to hear the album. They SNL one song and slap DMCA on everything else so the poor kids have no idea how badly the rest of the album reeks until they get it out of the shrink wrap.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[DavidTC]

This is why the movie industry is going apeshit over movies that sneak out before the release date.

Why? It's not spoilers, or they wouldn't have prereleases. And people who care about spoilers are going to watch the movie anyway.

It's not about getting money from people who will spend hours download a crappy video camera capture. Those people are few and far between, and those people wouldn't see a movie anyway.

And doesn't explain why they care so much more about pre-release movies. These people aren't going to look for a screener on opening day, not find it, and decide 'Instead of waiting two days, I will go pay money'. That doesn't make any sense at all.

It's for one reason and one reason only. See, they could usually count on ads to carry the opening weekend of completely shitty movies. Maybe even two weekends. And then the facade would collapse and the movie would go away.

Well, first the internet cut into the second weekend. Well, damn, but even they are smart enough to know trying to do something about people who come in, pay money, then dislike the movies won't fly, at least until they purchase all the government, and that could take years.

And a few screeners got out, usually of amazingly popular movies, and they didn't give a damn. That really just promoted the movie, and the music industry, unlike the recording industry, seems to understand that.

But now there have been quite a few craptaculars that snuck out before the opening day (I'm thinking 'The Incredible Hulk' for some reason.) and the opening weekened sales stunk. The obvious conclusion was that word of mouth happened before the opening.

I feel like I'm in a Dilbert comic:

Premise: People don't want to see shitty movies.
MPAA solution: Make sure that they don't know it's shitty until after they have paid.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[EireannX]

If that were the case, they'd flood P2P with their own music.

The same way that Microsoft has opened their source to compete with Linux? If you are winning in the current paradigm, why would you participate in changing to a new model when you can have the new one outlawed or crippled?

See SCO case, Patent threats or some of the seemingly fraudulent TCO reports

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[n3g471v3 z3r0]

That's because the system that the RIAA has put in place is a system of "Singles". Which promotes bands writing one "good" song, and then filling the rest of the cd with crap. They want you to hear the single on the radio and go out and buy the whole cd. The singles are already on P2P networks, so they've got nothing to promote with there.

Re:There is only one child in this argument

[JetTredmont]

But there's a new kid - P2P. If I download Metallica, I'm likely to buy Matallica. However, if I download someone not on the radio, they don't get that Metallica sale because I already spent the fifteen bucks on two indie CDs.

While you may be an exceptional P2P citizen, trying music then buying it or deleting it from your drive, you are a very rare breed. The average P2P user that I know has no intent of EVER buying what they already possess.

Now, assuming your model was more prevalent, what logical market reactions would we be seeing? Independent artists or small-label artists would gladly risk a small percentage of sales for the publicity of people around the world happening on them. Would they flood Kazaa with their music?

No, that would be silly. They'd flood rights-respecting networks with their music, and put it on their web site for people to download from the source.

Point of fact: there are hundreds, thousands, quite likely even more bands doing that right now. Right next to the free music sits a link to buy the rest of the album (or, in some cases, the rest of the song, or the entire album in higher quality than the free preview, etc).

It works. But, ya know what? Kazaa still has several times the user base of legitimate download networks or even artist-sponsored free download sites. In a world where people just wanted to try and then go and buy, would that be the case?

To the point: if you really want small artists to be heard, and don't just want "free" music, then you're putting your cart on the wrong horse here. Take Kazaa and its ilk down; they do nothing but mar your argument and ideals by association. Turn to supporting the various legal alternatives and the artists.

If you're not able to make that step and turn on Kazaa, then obviously Kazaa offers you something more than you're claiming here. Please enlighten me if I'm missing something, but it seems the only other option here is that, as said above, you're just whining because the RIAA doesn't want you taking their music for free.

The cost of doing business

[erroneus]

Look. At some point the law, and everyone else needs to say "SUCK IT UP RIAA because that's who you're doing business with!"

It doesn't matter how the RIAA is to be compensated for anything anyone does that infringes on their profit model. Whatever compensation they are given, it will never be enough because they will continually lie about the damage being done until everyone that hums a tune to themselves has to pay for each note in a song!

People will do what they do. They are making more than enough money and if they decide the business isn't profitable then let them LEAVE the business as surely someone else will pick up that ball and run with it under the current conditions.

If the RIAA wants to "tax" our blank media, then they'd damn well give us a carte blanche to make all the "illegal copies" we want without fear of prosecution since we'd be paying for our crimes in advance of our committing them.

That said, the RIAA knows their customers and the people at large. They should just forget about it and leave their profits where they are... they're "good enough" damnit.

Buy a Mac?

[buddachile]

When we reviewed Macrovision's then state-of-the-art CDS-300 version 7 copy-protection scheme last year, while it happily imposed restrictions on Windows users, the sample tracks we were challenged to rip where easily converted from CD audio to MP3 on a PowerBook G4 running iTunes. Right now, the solution to copy-protection appears simple: buy a Mac.

What about a Linux box? Anyone having trouble ripping copy protected CD's on a Linux box?

All pirated songs are RIAA songs

[WillAffleckUW]

so, obviously, we must do away with RIAA, since it's the cause of all this piracy.

Besides, if we do away with RIAA, artist revenues for new artists will skyrocket.

Suck factor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy their music at any price if it wasn't canned.

Re:Such a tax *was* added to certain types of CD-R

[nigel_q]

You actually bought into that Music-CDR scam??? Oh man, how embarassing! :)

Hello?! McFly?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absurd

I guess Sony, one of the largest audio copyright holders, record label, publisher etc- is REALLY concerned over this because they are one of the largest manufacturers of both the CD laser writing mechanisms in CD Hardware AS WELL AS on of the largest sellers of::DRUM ROLL::

BLANK CD-R Media!

You see there is this thing called the Home Recording Act, which made many record companies nervous because it began the "tape to tape" copying frenzy of audio cassettes. Instead of fighting this, the RIAA got savvy and instead began to profit off if it.

To this day the law is still in effect, but due to the almost lossless digital formats avail- it appears as if the RIAA want more $ to listen to a better copy of your friend's CD

The answer is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep shifting their focus to eventually eliminate their competition. That way, all audio will carry a pay-per-use license. Eventually, of course, everything will carry a pay-per use license.

RIAA's Middleman Master Plan

[mpapet]

Look,

The *companies* that make up the RIAA attempt as often as possible to maintain control of the distribution channel. Then some very creative accounting comes into play that makes a well-sold record unprofitable to everyone but the label's internal accounting.

Now, take away:
1. Ability to hide profits
2. Total control of distribution

And RIAA members carefully constructed and inefficient market is collapsing around them.

RIAA members respond by:
A. Legislating to ensure their future revenues are protected despite their irrelevance.
B. Eliminating non-riaa approved methods of distribution. Apple has to be feeling the heat from these guys after ITMS was far more successful than they imagined.

Sadly, they will be very successful on all fronts because of the current political environment favoring private ownership and profit at the expense of practically everything else.

Consumer's won't really care because in exchange for giving more priveledges and controls to the mega-corps, they will be entertained.

Will the RIAA ever alienate us completely?

[rolfwind]

I'm sick of the complaining from the RIAA. I've been hearing it since forever - will our generation ever turn our backs to big media completely and force their artists to go into other distribution methods (for their long term good as well) in our lifetime?

I know it's an idealistic thought - but now the technology is available and the internet makes it technically plausible - I would think it'd be only sweet poetic justice that it'll do them and the companies behind them in.

It sickens me when I think that they'll still control music in 20,30,40, or 50 years with their righteous airs and the arrogant expectations that they should sell more every year no matter what garbage they push.

Re:Will the RIAA ever alienate us completely?

[sinewalker]

I will and I have. Mainstream mass-media sucks, appart from a few groups, anyway.

try visiting some net labels. You can find a lot of legal / legit sites listed at archive.org. Some I like are Kahvi Collective and Thinnerism although Thinner seems to prefer IE browsers and MP3 over Ogg, but you can work around it. The pieces are Creative Commons licenced, so it's free, but if you like these groups, consider donating them some money.

If you're not into techno, Thinner's sister label AutoPlate is good too.

Net labels are the way of the future. I've considered entering the music business, and from what I am seeing, media groups like RIAA / ARIA offer no market advantage over the Net now, and frankly I reckon I can make more money and get at least as wide a distribution without a corporate music label's help, thanks very much.

As for mainstreme penetration of music into the Net, RIAA and Apple are doing a grand job of advertising the fact that you can get music off the Net, thanks.

Now it is up to more musicians to shurk the big music companies that only serve to rip you off (witness complaints by Michael Jackson, Prince and others over their own deals). Get on the net, distribute your tracks yourself and be free -- you may even make a living in your own lifetime.

Re:WTF--I pay them royalties, how is this "piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just not rich enough yet; they don't currently own every. That's their problem, I believe.

Who is the bigger threat?

[philkerr]

I don't hear any outrage from Mr. Bainwol about the "pervasive" and "wrong and improper" practices found to have been comitted by the members of his organisation. Any condemnation for these illegal actions? Any calls for a tough stand against payola?

Of course not, and the $10 million is not seen so much as a fine but more of a cost of doing business. Federal crimes? Your average RIAA labels A&R manager fears not.

Nor do the UK arms fear the law, with senior managers at Sony being threatened with an Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbo).

Wait just a minute...

[HunterZ]

Here are a few of the reactions I had to TFA - sorry if any are dupes of what others have already said:

1. How can the RIAA just change their target in the middle of the game (now that they realize that can't win?) and expect to retain any credibility with the general public?

Besides, recordable optical disks have been in widespread use for a decade now. People aren't going to accept a new format with DRM unless it has benefits that outweigh such a heavy downside.

2. I know a lot of people think of CD-R's and DVD-R's when they hear "writable media", but it looks to me like it may be a veiled attack on the popularity explosion of the iPod and such. From TFA, it sounds like the RIAA is making this noise to push copy-protected CDs, but could it actually be an attempt to put public pressure on Apple to fall in line with the industry's DRM crazyness?

I'm not a big follower of Apple, but I've got to respect that they've decided to turn their nose up at this audio copy protection busniess.

3. The TFA mentions that Apple would have to license the DRM technology in order to use it in, say, the iPod. This is ridiculous - why should Apple want to pay to cripple their products? Shouldn't the RIAA (or whoever) be paying Apple instead of the other way around, to compensate for lost business?

its like they have ESPN or something

[crashelite]

so how the heck do they know if i give my friend a CD of a new band... how would they know? its like they have ESP or something or they just pull numbers out of their ass... (and yes i ment to put the espn in the subject not a typo... just stupid movie line)

Middle ground

[Andy Gardner]

So where's the middle ground? One side wants too much money, and the other side doesn't want to pay anything.

Lower prices?

Re:Is this a joke? Look at the MEASURE!

[nolife]

There are many non "hit" listeners. I happen to enjoy every track of the selections I purchase. Although I make my own mix cds for convienence, the song selections I choose for each disc are not designated songs that I feel stand above the others. My kids on the other hand are as you describe. They take it a step further and have a queue of about 40 songs that come and go through some type LRU replacement policy.

On why the RIAA is 'suddenly' going after CDRs

[Haiku 4 U]

It's simple really.
No money can be got from
P2P networks.

Re:sneakernet ...is it OK to use...

[vettemph]

a pair of Rockports?

We (no names provided) like to share a USB harddrive. When you loan it to someone they copy files off and then add files to the drive. Before you know it, the drive is full and everyone has a copy. This can be much better than P2P for "general" libraries. You still need P2P (or a music store) to find specific songs.

So you're THE guy...

[unicorn]

I always wondered who actually bought the audio/music CD-R's. Someone must, if they continue to carry them in stores.

Now I know. It's you. Probably only you, for that matter.

Personally, I buy regular data grade CD-R's by the 100 disc spindle. Of course if you checked, every single CD I have a copy of in the car, I have the original tucked away in a box at home so it won't get scratched or stolen.

Re:So you're THE guy...

[melonriel]

Actually, my dad bought me a pack of those audio/music CD-Rs when I asked him to pick some CD-Rs up for me (I wanted ordinary ones) and he has a bunch of them by his computer that he uses for recording his CDs (he's a musician). He's not incredibly savvy with technology, so he may be under the impression that you need a special kind of CD to make music CDs and that an ordinary one just won't work. So they may be marketing these types of CDs to those who just don't know the difference.

Re:So you're THE guy...

[xander2032]

I actually got a good deal one time on 50 CD-R "music" Maxell's with the slim CD cases. Like $16 at Sam's Club! I used most of them for data. lol

That was the only time I bought "music" CD-Rs.

Re:So you're THE guy...

[julesh]

so he may be under the impression that you need a special kind of CD to make music CDs

If you have one of the Sony standalone CD recording devices, you do. I suspect this is the case for many amateur musicians, but probably not many others... so they're taxing exactly the wrong people!

Then I have some REALLY bad news for these guys

[twigles]

I stopped using CDs years ago. I now have a 200 gig external hard drive, and when that gets too small I'll buy a 500 gig one. If I want to pirate something I'm going to damn well do it, and I'll do it 30 gigs at a time while I go eat a burrito with my friend.

These clowns need to start charging much lower prices like the guys over at allofmp3.com. They don't have to match those prices, but $1/song is stupid.

I WANT TO PAY FOR MUSIC! And I'd rather have it be completely legit than have to go to some quasi-legal Russian site. But they can shove their high prices where the sun don't shine.

Re:Then I have some REALLY bad news for these guys

[MBHkewl]

FYI :: Recordable media isn't interchangable with external storage media. External storage media (harddisks, thumb drives...etc) are fragile and can easily get corrupted.

What if you wanna give someone a file or so, you need a laptop or a pc to copy files over.

Recordable media can be shared, while your external storage usually wouldn't, since it may contain personal files.

See my point?

I use both and keep everyone happy ^_^

Money grubbing bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, 'true' piracy (read: organized for-profit duplication) hurts their bottom line, but recordable media is just the means, not the source of the problem. The money grubbing bastards are trying to turn public opinion to make filesharing/track mixing look like piracy. But it isn't. Never has been, never will be, for a VERY SIMPLE REASON: people who download music or take copies from friends WERE NEVER GOING TO BUY YOUR MUSIC. They aren't affecting the bottom line because they were never a part of it. In fact, the more that people trade files or burned CDs, the more likely that people who never bought CDs before will buy them.

the last time I made an audio CD was...

[E8086]

Yahoo! News covered this yesterday "Music Industry Worried About CD Burning", They're at least 5yrs too late to do anything about this, CD-Rs are too common, sold everywhere at low prices. The public will not accept a price increase or additional tax, think Canadia.
I'll make the claim that use of CD-Rs for illegal copying of music CDs is minimal, far behind data backup/storage, games, movies, the 700MB DivX kind, remixes of purchased songs for personal use and the allowed "one backup copy for archival use" I personally make a copy and use the copy and keep the original in a semi-safe place where it won't get scratched.
With most of mp3 player market going to the iPod, which for now is a good thing since Apple is allowing the importing of CDs in unrestricted mp3 format.
Eventually the masses will realize they're getting ripped off any maybe a big boycott of the RIAA will happen. People didn't want to pay $15 for a CD so they went to a heavily DRM-ed legal download service, what next when people realize that 128kbps is not acceptable?
Does anyone remember how 128kbps became the generally accepted encoding? (I think it was the advertising as an mp3 being 1mb/min) I use 320, ipod max, and will not accept anything under 192 for music. I'll buy a used CD and rip it at 320, how long until they want to try to outlaw the resale of media?

You just wait!

[Cytlid]

You evil downloaders! When the RIAA blackmails all of us, you will learn! Who will promote artists and handle recordings when they do? Huh? You think artists can just promote themselves, make a name for themselves, cut their own albums, and distribute them via this internet thing!?!! Nooo, sir. When the RIAA goes on strike and you no longer have *any* music to listen to, you'll be sorry! All of you will be sorry!

Once there was a river...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...but it used to flood. So King said: "If only we could halve the amount of water flowing through this river we could stop the flooding". So one of the King's wise men studied the river and found that if he observed a cross-section of the river, half the water went through the left half and half the water went through the right half. So the wise man proposed this to the King: "If we build a dam that spans half the width of the river we can stem these floods". The King was pleased with the wise man's suggestion. So the wise man arranged the building of the dam. When the dam was complete he took his payment, and being the wise man that he was, he ran.

The day RIAA sue me...

[layer3switch]

It will be the day when RIAA start suing anyone who remembers the lyrics in their brain.

Watch out! Singing in the shower may violate RIAA's copyright!

Only way to boycott RIAA is to listen to only classical music which all composers and musicians had died hundred years ago.

a few thoughts

[yagu]

The RIAA sometimes reminds me of Steve Martin in the movie The Jerk. Their ability (and the Jerk's) to associate cause and effect is just plain bizarre. Of course in the case of Steve Martin and the Jerk it's forgivable since the Jerk is supposed to be stupid!

In The Jerk Steve Martin is the idiot who, when a crazed sniper fires on him and starts asploding cans all around him, Martin jumps to the conclusion the cans are defective. When confronted with the reality there really is in fact a sniper shooting, he then jumps to the conclusion the sniper wants to shoot the cans. A memorably funny scene in a memorably funny movie for its day.

Fast forward to the insanity that is the music industry and RIAA. First it's music downloading and "piracy" that's killing them and CD sales even though contradicted by superimposed plots of downloaded songs and CD sales during the emergence and heyday of Napster (CD sales spiked identically with spiked activity in music downloads). Now it's people burning CD's. Obviously as this ship sinks, the people at the helm of the RIAA have been under water a few times and are now drawing conclusions with oxygen-starved brains. Idiots.

Fortunately, this is all evolution at its best and I predict the day will(maybe even soon!) come where the RIAA becomes largely irrelevant as musicians figure the business models out for themselves. Maybe we'll never see the juggernauts like the Beatles again because of the new model, but there sure are plenty of talented musicians out there just waiting to be heard. Lowering their threshold to market entry can be only a good thing.

RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Those a-holes need to get their story straight... first it was P2P now it's CDs, what next? Maybe my memory is guilty of unlawfully recording other people's songs, uh-oh my brain will be confiscated by the RIAA... scary. The only idiots who believes that stupid group is the other stupid group of overly paid, fat-arsed morons in the senate and house.

How many...

[midifarm]

Records were ripped off by people taping them? How many cassettes were ripped off from dubbing or the dreaded dual well cassette deck? It's been going for years, get over it!

Peace

Re:How many...

[hurfy]

All of my cassettes are merely copies i borrowed from a friend and time-shifted a couple decades :)

Actually i am glad i own practically all the music i'll ever need already. 100+ 8-tracks, 100+ cassttes, 200+ albums, 100 CDs (yes, the home stereo is kinda large), 27 itunes tracks :)

No new music from the evil empire in years and years :)

One thing i want to know is:
Who is gonna replace my old media?
My 8-tracks are wearing out and i have no desire to pay for them again. Even if i did they won't sell me a new one. One of these days i will HAVE TO download the best quality i can find and rerecord my own if i can find em :/

No one said when i bought them that the license was for X number of years or X number of times no matter how careful i am!

So far only downloaded free stuff, but one of these days i'll get around to downloading MY old music thats bad. RIAA doesn't like it they can swap tapes with me ;)

Anyone seen anything that will unrip to a Quad without synthesizing it? laugh --> cry

Yawp Yawp Yawp

[eno2001]

That's right. More people are passing around CD-Rs and DVD-Rs at the water cooler, family functions and longabarger basket parties than using P2P. And you know why??? Technical abilities. Those who have some grasp of how to use a computer properly are more likely to use P2P. Those who know how to use a computer enough to get what they want but haven't a clue what they're doing use recordable media. The percentages sound about right if applied thus:

16% - Knowledgable computer users who can at least install their OS on their PC
29% - People who bought computers because they're the hot item and they didn't want to feel left out but haven't a clue how to use PCs and resort to using PowerPoint for makeing greeting cards and Word for screenshots to mail off to co-workers.

Yawp, yawp, yawp... Sounds 'bout raht ta me bwahs!!!

It's all very scientific

[The Angry Mick]

You see, they have this large machine called "The Obvious Way to Nag Exasperate and Dominate". Inside this machine is a very large and hungry chicken. Whenever the RIAA wants to perform a piracy loss study, they give a handful of popcorn to a trained Capuchin Monkey. The monkey then walks over to the machine, and throws his feces on the side of the glass while taunting the chicken by eating the popcorn. The chicken flies into an apoplectic rage, and begins trying to peck through the glass. By counting the number of pecks and multiplying the results by the diameter of a music CD, the RIAA thus discovers how much money they are losing for that particular day.

Re:It's all very scientific

[gardyloo]

Oh, a much better explanation than I've seen before. Thanks. ...but is that an African or European chicken?

Re:It's all very scientific

[The Angry Mick]

European - 'cause of the metric system. ;-)

Re:WTF--I pay them royalties, how is this "piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their problem, quite simply, is that they can't find a way to grow their business.

They had a huge boost with people (1) replacing their vinyls with CDs and then (2) deserting tapes, but that's gone, because (1) always was a one off, and (2) was replaced by mp3s. They tried new mediums, but that flopped because CDs are good enough.

They pushed marketing and shortened albums (sorry, singles) lifespan to increase the number of "must have" new release but they hit a wall because there's only so many artists MTV (and alikes) and the radios can sell in a month. People just forget about them.

The music buying share of the population is shrinking because people have had less and less kids (in their western world market anyway) for the past 3 decades, and older people (1) don't buy as much new stuff as younger ones, and (2) already have what enough stuff they like for 2 lifetimes (bar the new medium effect, see above).

People are also shifting their entertainment money to other products. I know that over the past few years I bought over 50 DVDs, and just a couple CDs. Now I don't download. At all. But when I go to HMV and I got a choice between 3 DVDs I like for 30 euros (or whatever offer they have) and 1 CD I kinda liked 2 songs on for 25, or might like, guess what I do... Now if they offered, say, "The complete Metallica" (or whatever it is you like), all the albums, plus interviews, a live DVD, a book, I don't know, for 60 (like I bought the 4 Alien special edition), I would possibly buy. But they don't.

So, short of new markets or new strategies (which would entail risks, BigCo management is allergic to risk), what's left is going after "piracy", which is also a convenient excuse when shareholders start asking questions.

And of course those guys have wet dreams about a system where you pay per listening, so anything to push DRM, and more stringent laws, and banishing recording is good, because it's a step in that direction.

[rant]
Incidentally, that's what Microsoft would like to offer them with their secure path blah blah blah. Of course the Music/Movie Corps are a bit afraid they'd have to give them too much royalties. Which is the only thing that's saving us, because Microsoft wouldn't hesitate a jiffy to screw its existing customers for a new market. Something to do with having a monopoly...
[end rant]

Doh!

[argent]

Wow. I can predict the past!

RIAA Fat Cats

[Anonymous Coward]

Where piracy tends to thrive is where the consumer perceives that goods and services are not convenient and price is out of whack," --Peter Chernin, chairman and CEO of the Fox Group.

This about sums it up for me. The RIAA doesn't seem to understand that an effective model is to provide convenient products at a reasonable price to it's consumers. It is NOT good to taint the product with so-called "copy protection" and file lawsuits against your consumers.

My belief is that no matter what the RIAA does to protect their product, either through technical or litigous means, pirates will continue to break their protections and consumers will continue to only buy what they deem worth buying. (read, we ain't buying what you're selling RIAA.)

On a more down to earth note, any business model that can support producers and artists in multi-million dollar mansions with personal jets and above-the-law privelages must not be doing that badly...boohoo, whine whine, RIAA...

Someone please inform me.

[TooncesTheCat]

The article states that 29% of the music comes from duplication means. 19% from illegaly downloaded music.

Where does the other 45% come from? Last I checked those are the only two ways to acquire illegal music. I'm probably oversighting something. The other 45% just can't appear in front of you by some other means than mentioned above.

misstated grocery store profits

[newend]

The margins at grocery stores are about 1%. It's one of the lowest profit margins. The only thing they have going for them is just about everyone shops at grocery stores; therefore, they can make up for low margins by high turnover. Or so I was told by my marketing professor.

Re:Such a tax *was* added to certain types of CD-R

[FragHARD]

That is why I buy only 'data' grade cd's (oh, and avoid philips of course) you just have to do a little research before you get a burner. Might I suggest a trip over to ---> http://www.cdfreaks.com/ or maybe a little preresearch first ---> http://www.cdrfaq.org/ FragHARD or don't frag at all

RIAA claims

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? They promoted us from stolers/robbers/pirates and such bs to "music fans".

I sense something nasty.

Won't be long before..

[Anonymous Coward]

..they start suing people for talking about how crappy a CD was. since obviously, telling your friend that the latest cookie cutter band's CD sucks means your friend probably won't buy it.. that's just like STEALING from the record companies' bottom line!!

A quick demonstration...

[Necromancyr]

Ok, a quick demonstration of the numbers ( John Doe has a bunch of his CDs he just transfered to his really nifty new HTPC. Well, his girlfriend Jane likes a bunch of the stuff. So he copies the MP3/etc. files on to a CD/DVD and then gives this to Jane. Instead of just copying one tape, one cd, etc., he may have just copied 20-30. And, yes, it's a heck of a lot easier to just get whatever you want that friends have this way then via P2P. Why download what someone already has and can burn in a few minutes? So, overall, were back to where we were before P2P just that we can do the copying more efficiently.

All my music is on recordable CDS... know why?

[DaedalusHKX]

Because you and your puppetteers should learn that since you make CHEAP ASS cds, that scratch easilly, I will always rip them and reburn them. My entire favorite songs list fits on 3 cdrs... why should I carry around several cds I only like 2 or 3 tracks from, instead of just burning what I like??

Also, when did you fucktards get off on deciding that the copy for my own use is somehow taxable as illegal ??? eh? How about I drive down and beat every one of you into the mud, and sue you because I hurt my knuckle bashing your face in? Sound familiar? This is what you retards are doing to us and our rights out here in consumerville.

I haven't bought a CD in years and I don't plan to, you all release SHIT, and as SHIT I will treat it. I've bought only indies stuff, and when you illegalize or overtax CDS I will find a way... as will others. And eventually we'll probably get the pitchforks and torches and kill you all.

Honestly folks, its time for a revolution. So many of our rights are leaving out the backdoor and walking off a short pier, that we need to do something about it. Lets walk to the RIAA and MPAA HQ's and kick in the door and drag them out... and tax them for any inconvenience and injury we incur in doing so. Unlike the corporations with more "legal" rights than us, we ARE CITIZENS and we have those things called "INALIENABLE RIGHTS"... we still have them right??

the recordable CD tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there already a CD tax on all recordable media and recorders sold that goes to these wankers?

What about all that income? Where has it gone? Any accounting of that?

(As I look at all the recordable media containing my backups, with no infringing files on any of it, and my three dvd recorders...)

Canadians already pay these royalties

[sscottsci]

In Canada, we already pay large royalties on blank media just so that the "CRIA, the Canadian version of the RIAA can receive the royalties to forward to their members.

These royalties were put in place long before CD-R's were common, back when DAT taping of the radio was to be the threat, and are now on all blank media. These companies take the money without even proving that you pirate music. Our company sells its software on CD-Rs, and we produce them inhouse and pay the record industry a royalty on every one of these CDs.

The original reason for the tariff was to cover the problem when some people used these CDs for this purpose, and has simply been a collection ever since for the CRIA.

According to the Wikipedia Entry the following notes are quite interesting.
* The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs.
* The levy is paid by importers and manufacturers of such media sold within Canada (and typically passed on to the retailer, and passed on to the purchaser).
* The levy is collected regardless of the purchaser's end use of the media.
* Only copyright holders of sound recordings of musical works are entitled to a share of the proceeds. (Note that these copyright holders may be separate persons from the holders of the copyright in the musical works themselves; ie. the composer or performer. Holders of copyrights in sound recordings are those who record or authorise the recording of a song; often this is a recording label.)
* The Canadian Private Copying Collective has devised a scheme by which the proceeds are to be allocated to registered sound recording copyright holders. AS of July 30th, 2004 none of the collected funds had yet been disbursed.
* In conjunction with the levy, the Copyright Act allows individuals to make copies of sound recordings for their own private, non-commercial use. They may not distribute the copy.
* On December 17th, 2004, a Canadian judge ruled that the blank media tax no longer applied to MP3 players such as Apple Computer's iPod. Before this, the rates were $2 for players with less than 1 GB of capacity, $15 for players up to 15 GB, and $25 for players 15 GB and over.

Can you imaging, all this collected, and nothing given out to the artists. How can anyone think it will be different with the RIAA?

Er... My Philips CDR765 is a *stereo* component.

[Richard Steiner]

More info here:

    http://www.gallagher.com/music/cdr.htm

I suspect that I've been burning my LPs and analog tapes to CD for a somewhat longer time period than most of the folks here have been burning music CDs on their PCs (hint: I bought it in 1998). :-)

Of course, I make CD-to-CD copies using my PC burner these days, but I didn't buy the above component strictly for (or even mainly for) digital-to-digital transfers. I bought it to digitize my analog music collection.

It's also admittedly been nice to have a "digital tape deck" that lets me do transfers of music from any source to CD at the touch of a button with no computer required.

Re:Is this a joke? Look at the MEASURE!

[PhYrE2k2]

Agreed- for me it depends on the group/genre- There are of course catchy tracks and then there's your Rattle And Humm CD. That's just the way music works.

Nonetheless, Whether they use them or not, they are still counting 16x (just a guess) or some average number of tracks for every CD copied rather than songs on a P2P network which are often downloaded one-at-a-time (keyword: often). People hear a song on the radio and put it on a MP3 player or in their car. The measure is not the same.

If they counted a number of copies (ie: CDs counting as one), I'd agree, but 2x as many songs means 1/8th of as many albums copied than songs downloaded... whcih makes it seem like much less of an issue.

All I'm saying is that they're trying to tout big numbers so everyone gets all in an uproar and takes action.

In all reality...

[DaedalusHKX]

We'll probably have to bend over and take it in the ass from Uncka' Boosh and Uncka MusicIndustry... but that's what we get for not being up in arms about this crap.

I'm sure several years down the road, we'll hear how "Emperor Bush has dissolved the Imperial Congress".

Man I wish more people had the guts and brains to walk away from being consumerists and learning to think before buying shit... the CON in consumer tells one something right? CON means against... we're acting against our own interest by acting on impulses and buying crap, only to take it home and play it and find out that the tracks from the radio were the ONLY halfway decent ones, and the others aren't worth the laserlight used to read them from the CD.

Don't we already pay an RIAA tax?

[GomezAdams]

As I recall, there is supposed to be surcharge on all blank CDs and tapes sold in the US that was imposed because of the whining of the RIAA.

Can someone find it? I'm working and don't have the time myself.

Re:Don't we already pay an RIAA tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Need money again, huh??

[Anonymous Coward]

Started lobbying for new taxes on recordable media...

How's new technology coming on in the record industry?

You bet. It was worth every penny.

[Richard Steiner]

Some of us geeks with audiophilic tendencies weren't willing to wait until the PC world caught up, and I actually still use it from time to time.

Boy, you're right

[jizmonkey]

It isn't hard to understand, and you are 100% wrong. You might want to read section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act once school gets out. In brief, it is perfectly acceptable under U.S. law to make a copy of a recording for a friend, whether analog or digital. The same is true for many other countries.

Re:Boy, you're right

[amliebsch]

Wow, no need to be a jackass. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are stupid.

In any case, I disagree with your interpretation of section 1008, which says only that no civil action may be brought for noncommercial copying by a consumer. Obviously, the RIAA would argue that your providing copies to friends is not noncommercial, because it displaces copies that might otherwise be sold at retail, and I think that's a winning argument.

Unless you can point to some case law that says otherwise, I'm pretty sure this is how it would come down.

Re:Boy, you're right

[Kythe]

In any case, I disagree with your interpretation of section 1008, which says only that no civil action may be brought for noncommercial copying by a consumer. Obviously, the RIAA would argue that your providing copies to friends is not noncommercial, because it displaces copies that might otherwise be sold at retail, and I think that's a winning argument.

Since this argument can always be made (any copy you make, for yourself or others, can be said by definition to be "displacing" copies you could have bought otherwise), by this definition there's no such thing as "noncommercial copying". Since the law specifically allows for something called "noncommercial copying", this is an absurdity and your interpretation cannot be what Congress intended.

I would suspect that "noncommercial copying" is copying in which people don't sell the copies themselves.

Artists get nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Those girls who sang the song about a waterfall? Yeah they had platinum records. They went bankrupt. Artists make money from public performances, not cds. Artists get like $.03 per cd sale. RIAA gets a lot more. The RIAA and the Hospital Administration guys should get together and start a club called "screwing everybody for a quick buck."

RIAA Quote

[MBHkewl]

"Anything we don't have total control over is a threat to our business model" - RIAA

I wish all the RIAA employees lose their bladder control, then their bladders will cause a threat, and eventually will shoot themselves, in the bladder.

-> To RIAA employee with lost bladder :: Would you like a recordable media instead of that lost bladder? I suggest a rewritable media...

RIAA - you got me this time!!!

[AetherBurner]

Yes, RIAA, you are right! I buy all those CD and DVD blanks to copy files...Linux Install files, Live CD's, hard drive backup. Heck, I even give away the DVD's that I burn, for free, to people to try out Linux. I think that I will go and burn some more disks tonight - Knoppix live and Slackware installs.

Why books aren't copied

[Cedric Tsui]

Not saying that they aren't. But generally there's nowhere near as big of a fuss over illegal photocopies of books as there is over illegal copies of music CDs.

But a photocopied book just isn't a good to read. The pages are too big, it takes a long time to make the copy, there isn't a nice binding or a hard cover.

Now what needs to be understood is that a song is information, and information will become more and more free as the information age matures. RIAA is fighting an uphill battle. If they want to continue to thrive against free information trading, they need to realize they aren't selling the music alone. They are selling the entire package, including the pretty jewel case, and the nice photos of that latest hot girl singer, or the boy band with no shirts on.

The music industry needs to develop a product that we prefer to actually own than simply copy. Just like we prefer to use a real book than sit in front of a monitor reading the electronic version. Even if it's just because we like having it sit on our bookshelf.

Solution to copy-protection: Buy a Mac

[allgood2]

What the report failed to note was that the Mac version of iTunes has generally been fairly robust in its unwillingness to cater to copy-protection technologies. When we reviewed Macrovision's then state-of-the-art CDS-300 version 7 copy-protection scheme last year, while it happily imposed restrictions on Windows users, the sample tracks we were challenged to rip where easily converted from CD audio to MP3 on a PowerBook G4 running iTunes. Right now, the solution to copy-protection appears simple: buy a Mac.

My favorite quote from the article, and currently, very true. I remember when I read that the Foo Fighters and Dave Matthews new albums wouldn't work in iTunes. I was like, "worked for me". But I had forgotten about the OS factor. Choose wisely!

Margins?

[gr8_phk]

"Amazingly enough, at $12.99 per CD, record companies typically net significantly less than 20% at the end of the year."

And the "artists" make even less than that - that's tragic. Remember, the RIAA serves the purposes of replication, marketing, and distribution. With the internet, distribution cost is essentially zero. They should not expect to make ANY money on this service any more. Reproduction (burning a CD) could be pushed to the consumer, or the record store. Replication is really low anyway these days. That leaves marketing. There is value in marketing - look at the big stars that wouldn't be anywhere if not for marketing. I don't know how you make money marketing something that has zero distribution and replication cost. Should that even be possible? The future looks to me like this: Performers make money by performing, while freely redistributed recordings serve as free advertisement for their shows.

This means marketing isn't really viable as a business either. It also means synthetic superstars are a nonstarter. If you can't perform live (or go on tour lip-syncing as they do now) you don't get any money. People will not build an empire by spending a couple weeks in a studio and selling copies of their heavily edited stuff forever. That's not what copyright law was supposed to be about anyway.

I haven't purchased more than a few CDs in years, and I don't download either. I think this whole thing is amusing and at it's root is the joke that the RIAA and their "stars" have become - and are trying to remain.

Ideas from an insane mind

[Widowwolf]

#1 i do not believe a tax on recordable cd's is anywhere in the future due to the nature of software companies and that they are more commonplace then ever. I do believe this is the next desperate move by the RIAA to pin lagging sales, artists moving to or starting up thier own labels that arent under the riaa, and the fact that even after all of the P2P programs were basically rendered null, their profits are still shoddy. The next step in thier program is tobegin more and more copyright protection. With each new wave of protection placed on the disks, people will find more ways to crack them. The RIAA has gotten themselves into a losing and viscious cycle.
I do not remember whom said it but i think the best quote to cover this is.." A liar, when confronted with facts, 78% will lie to back up the original lie"

hmm

[mattyrobinson69]

what about people who have cd copies of downloads?

Can't do it

[DynaSoar]

"The RIAA's favoured solution appears to be copy-protected CDs"

But playing those are illegal according to the DMCA. Playing them converts the signals into audio line level, which does not contain the copy protection scheme information. Any device which removes the copy protection feature is a violation of the DMCA. Every CD player does this as a matter of course. No CD player transmits the protection scheme along with the audio signal.

It's right there in the law. Putting a copy protected CD to its intended use is against the law.

The RIAA is suggesting people break the law.

"The latest 50 Cent album for $3 to $5"?

[DrCode]

Sounds like a great business!

That's great news!

[rsilvergun]

Anyone who bought the last Britney Spears album should be shot.

Unfortunately for the RIAA, copying a CD is legal

[greyfeld]

See my previous posts please:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151229&cid =12686886

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=104952&cid=893 7703

This is what I dont get...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is obviously a huge market for a new distribution model in music and movies that is wide open (otherwise people wouldnt be trading things), and I mean a trillion dollar market. How come no one capitalizes on this market? Is it because there actually is a conspiracy going on? If we were actually living in a free country with a free market these fools would have been replaced long ago. There is serious money (be the first $100 trillion company on your block) to be made by bringing handfulls of artists to market all at once (instead of the one or two pretty faces they are throwing at us now) and letting the market decide who stays and who goes. How come absolutely no one is capitalizing on this? Are there laws protecting the distribution models of the *AA's that I am unaware of? If nothing else you would have thought MS would have opened a recording studio and started signing artists on their own, hell they could make 10x the amount the *AA's can bribe them with. I just dont understand, obviously America is no longer the home of the brave or land of the free, it saddens me :((

Recordable media definitely the cause...

[vanyel]

...people copying records onto cassette tapes for each other will be the death of the industry!

They know what they're doing

[Danger Stevens]

They're not stabbing blindly, they're very deliberate about this.

The Spanish equivalent of the RIAA has lobbied the Spanish government so well that blank media consumers have to pay a fee in addition to the price of the media that goes straight to the music syndicate. They argued that pirated music was such a problem and the blank media was the medium for that problem that they should benefit directly from media sales.

I think that's what they're trying to do here.

The problem the RIAA has, is that it's legal...

[msauve]

to copy to audio CD-Rs, which can be purchased for $0.70 each or less. When you buy those, you're automatically paying a royalty tax (3% of wholesale) to copy content, so copy all your friend's CDs and save 95%. The RIAA should be more careful about what it wishes for - they pushed for the legislation which allows this.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 clearly states:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

[emphasis added]

wait a minute

[Cyno]

Don't we pay a royalty to the RIAA for each CDR we purchase, whether we using it for music or not?

I thought we had a deal here..

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/

RIAA being hypocritical and greedy...yet again.

[Parallax Blue]

This latest statement strikes me as pretty ironic, because they've been going after P2P Networks and filesharers so much when now it's apparently not as harmful as pirated music CD sales. It looks to me like the RIAA is just greedy and is stating this now so they can start cracking down on people who sell pirated music CDs, since they've already bashed the hell out of filesharers and P2P programs.

Absolutely wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

I listen to my pirated music on harddisks!!

The RIAA's logic trap

[interstellar_donkey]

When the RIAA first started to make a rucus about p2p, many noted that "People have been copying and sharing music with their friends for years on cassette tape. In the end, it proved to have little effect on the music industry's bottom line. How is this different?"

The RIAA responded by claiming p2p is different; it makes the copy and distribution of songs so easy, and can be offered to so many people that, unlike dubbing a cassette tape, it can do real damage to the music industry.

Now we get news that the bulk of music trading is done physically instead of over the internet; people are ripping and burning copies of CDs they own. The inference from the RIAA is that this process is damaging to the music industry. Presumably, they are going to use this information to justify the inclusion of restrictive DRM on their recordings and mandating that hardware manufacturers include DRM in their devices.

They seem to forget the fact that making a copy of an owned CD is, for all practical purposes, virtually identical to dubbing a cassette tape. Most people's equipment still restricts someone to making one copy at a time and requires the physical purchase and handling of blank media. If anything, the technology is more restrictive because of price. At the end of the 80s, you could pick up a "boom box" with duel cassette and a "high speed" dubbing feature for as low as $35, while copying CDs still require a fully functioning computer with a CD-R burner (which, even at the lower end is going to set you back $350). In addition, CD-Rs are not nearly as durable as cassette tapes, at least in the short run (you can't just throw a CD-R on the dashboard of your car like you could with a cheap cassette tape; it will scratch and become unplayable).

It's frustrating, because it seems the RIAA is making a lot of noise about mp3s killing the music industry and hurting the livelihood of artists when it's just not true. Historically, whenever any media industry fights a new technology and loses (audio cassette tapes, VCRs), we learn that the damages they claimed never came to pass. As a consumer (who happens to enjoy music quite a bit), it seems obvious that the RIAA's objections to home computer technology for copying and archiving music is pointless.

The more cynical side of me thinks that all of this is a case of self denial; that the RIAA is simply unwilling to admit that their declining sales are the result of consumer reaction to the flaws in the way their industry conducts business (i.e., signing and promoting identical sounding unoriginal and uninspiring bands because they have lost the ability to recognize and promote talent or setting CD prices higher then the market is willing to pay). They use file sharing and music copying as a scapegoat to draw attention away from their real problems.

What they fail to understand is that all they're managing to do with all this noise is piss off their customers. If DRM becomes a reality (and it probably will), I fear it will stand as the final nail in the music industry's coffin. A consumer today might purchase a CD and make multiple (legal) copies. One or two copies for archival, a copy for a friend, and might have the CD's tracks ripped to the mp3 format to be burned on a number of 'mix tape' discs for in the car or transferred to their mp3 player. The RIAA cannot reasonably expect consumers to react favorably if that freedom and flexibility is stifled by the restrictions of DRM. In other words, how do they honestly expect the average person to plunk down $18 for a recording that they can't do with as they please? If they're trying to get people to buy their music instead of obtaining it illegally, making the purchased product more inconvenient then it already is isn't going to help.

Re:The RIAA's logic trap

[jonfr]

RIAA did also claim, about the time when the orginal cassette did come on the market that "home taping was killing the industry". But in reality RIAA did only make more profit, after all. All the big companyes in the RIAA that sell music, also make cassettes, cd-roms, cd-rw and so on. In my opinion this is nothing more then an FUD campagin starting on half of RIAA, along with the FUD campagin on the P2P networks. The music "industry" makes billion each year, yet they still want more profit. RIAA is just about greed and the companyes and not the artist. As it was ment to be.

Umm - what about P2P software on CDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just see how far we can move that threat model .

Like everyone else here has said: it's the price, stupid. However, freedom of format is something I appreciate as well. If I buy music I'd like to listen to it in any format I care to use..

Interesting thesis

[gerddie]

There is an interesting thesis by Jochen Haller (Page mostly in German) about the economical effects of music copying and copy protection.

After years of constant growth, the music industry is, at present, in a serious crisis. The extent becomes obvious, in particular, on the basis of the substantial losses in revenue and sales in recent years. For example, the sales of sound storage mediums declined in 2003 in Germany by almost 20%. In addition, the resulting economic implications from this are already visible. Consequently, a number of record companies have significantly reduced their staff and their portfolio of artists. Furthermore, consolidation in the music industry has increased. Indeed, the future development is highly uncertain, but, nevertheless, most experts agree about the fact that the crisis in the music industry will continue in the years to come.

While the causes of the current crisis are largely contentious, the representatives of the music industry predominantly assume that this is a consequence of the rising extent of unauthorised copying. Therefore, the music industry reacted thus far with almost repressive measures, like the broad adoption of copy protection on compact disks. Since these are afflicted with a multitude of problems, the tightening of copyright protection represents the central claim of the representatives of the music industry. But this measure is also strongly disputed, since it implies a number of negative economic effects, for example, the increasing monopoly power of the right holders. Apart from the necessity for copyright protection as such, the question about its welfare-optimal level arises.

...

The complete English abstract can be found here.

I didn'd read the thesis but a short article about it at Telopolis. Unfortunately its all in German. Nevertheless, it's an interesting reading.

what is it this week...

[Eskimore_]

You'd either have to be gullible, living under a rock, or on the **AA payroll to believe this crap.

Learn the history of the music industry and technology. Technology has had to fight for the privlidge of force feeding that industry money.

Music industry execs are retarded.

Okay here's where I start to have a problem

[fishbowl]

I don't disagree with the recording industry's motivation to control their product, regardless of whether I agree with the methods they use to attempt to enforce that control.

What I *do* have a problem with, is that the effort to control their product encroaches on *my* ability to record my *own* music.

When the recording industry reaches this far, they start to abridge MY rights. I cannot stomach the idea being forced to use a specific DRM, or certainly, to pay a tax, in order to record or distribute music that I myself write, record, and hold the copyright to. In fact, I would argue that being forced to do so, actually abridges my rights and makes my otherwise absolute stake in my copyright a little less secure.

This is crazy

[aBum]

First off, I'd like to say that I have purchased maybe 3 CD's in the last year. I can honestly say that today's music sucks for the most part. Were good music to come out, I would be very willing and anxious to buy it. For anyone who doesn't believe this, I will gladly show you the rubbermaid container in my closet full of CD's (all legit, purchased).

Secondly, I have purchased countless CD-R's in the last 10 months. How many have been used to burn illegal music? None. I use them for data backups. I can imagine that the RIAA will somehow try to use these 'results' they have found to make me look like a criminal when I go to Staples and buy spools of CD-R's for the purpose of backing up pictures I've taken with my camera or backing up papers I've written for classes. Great - I can see the RIAA knocking on my door and questioning me about these said CD's.

One more thing - from the article I got the feeling that many new CD's can't be ripped. How will this effect my iPod and iTunes? Assuming I finally hear something that I consider good enough to buy the CD, does this mean it won't let me rip it to my iPod?

If you can't tell, I hate the RIAA. I agree with the idea out there that they are losing sales due to the lack of good music available, I think they are just too blind to see this and so are trying to find a scapegoat for their problems. I guess this is another reason I have not felt compelled to buy more music in the past few months than I have.

There are already car USB/MP3 players

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but until my car stereo accepts USB connections, I'll be burning CDs.

Check out the VR3 ( http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/000855.php ) or the MP3OnChannel (http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20050324/ ).

Could all RIAA stories be in the "jokes" dept?

[mikers]

From the article: 'The RIAA's chief executive, Mitch Bainwol, last week said music fans acquire almost twice as many songs from illegally duplicated CDs...

Umm, yeah, Mitch... 1999 called: they want their bull$hit back.

Dumping all this RIAA and MPAA crap into a "stupid, old jokes" category would would save me reading TFA, reading the comments and then deciding that "oh yeah, the RIAA is complaining in some new way fictitious way about profits being too low... Again".

Or I could just ignore these stories [ed: No, this is slashdot].

Om my gosh...

[ConceptJunkie]

Those cassette tape recorders are going to destroy the record industry. Just think how bad it would be if you could record television shows on cassette...

I don't know what's worse, the **AA flogging the same dead horse that was pummeled into equine pudding 30 years ago or the fact that /. laps it up like a starving cat in the Carnation factory.

Wake me when it's over.

Sales not revenue

[2008]

With the margins on CDs being what they are (see some of the posts above_, I suspect the record industry has a lot more cash floating around than Philips - a company whose products actually compete on a level field (i.e. labels are granted monopoly on artists they sign, dvd players are all equivalent but bands are not).

Your point is good though - I'd love a conglomorate of ISPs and electronics companies (and governments?) to simply purchase all the worlds music/video and make it public domain...

Re:Sales not revenue

[Master of Transhuman]

Don't know what the profit margins are between the specific companies. I imagine it varies considerably, and a lot of music companies might very well be making less actual profit than Philips, depending on how many "stars" they have on their labels.

A quick Google shows Philips Electronics actually making about 900 million Euros net profit in the most recent quarter, but most of that was from sales of some shares in another company. They actually only made $177 million in operating profit.

OTOH, another Google shows Warner Music, which owns Atlantic Records, lost $35 million in the last quarter excluding one time items, and coincidentally about the same $179 million loss total as Philips made in profit.

That issue is surfacing right now with my favorite band, The Corrs, because they have a new album coming out this fall, and it's not certain it will be released by Atlantic Records in the US because it's mostly covers of traditional Irish songs instead of pop rock. Somebody posted an article on the Corrboard mentioning that this was a hassle earlier in their career as well, with their manager having to mediate between two divisions of Atlantic, one that wanted to release an earlier album, one that didn't.

The music companies sure are making less profit than the entire tech industry, though - hell, less than Microsoft alone.

Actually, that's scary. Microsoft could buy the entire music industry with their existing cash and I couldn't listen to The Corrs anymore (legally, anyway) without paying Bill!

That Charles Stross' sci-fi story Accelerando mentioned here a couple weeks ago actually had this being done by the protagonist: I forget the details, but he arranged to get all the out-of-copyright music in the world, set up a front company, and when the RIAA Mob (they were actual Mob thugs in the story) came around, he set up the whole thing to be uploaded to every file-sharing network there was - or something like that. He "set the music free" technologically was the concept anyway.

Finally!

[lasindi]

You are one of the few people on Slashdot who are thinking reasonably about this issue.

They [the RIAA] charge very high prices for CDs, restrict their usage, and then wonder why their customers aren't happy. Grow up.

Yes, but there is a perfectly ethical and legal way to fight this: simply don't buy the music. If Ford charged ridiculously high prices for their cars, don't buy them. But that doesn't mean that you now have a right to go steal these cars (yes, I know it's not perfectly analagous, which is a good segway to my next point ...).

On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.

"Theft" is a slightly inaccurate portrayal of copyright infringement. It is much more like counterfeiting, which I hope we all agree is and should be illegal. In a capitalist economy, you earn money for your work, and you can then convert money into stuff you want (like music) as a reward. No, it doesn't directly affect anyone negatively, but that is an extremely short-sighted view of it. If counterfeiting were legal and everyone did it, money would become worthless and the economy would become irrelevant.

Similarly, piracy music devalues music and means that there is less of a reward for those who do work. If you pirate music, then you are getting a reward without earning it.

In any case, discussion of the practical effects of the RIAA's licensing schemes are beside the deeper point. If you are one of the "information wants to be free" crowd that doesn't recognize intellectual property, then you have a much more fundamental disagreement with the RIAA. But if you do recognize intellectual property as a legitimate idea, then you have to accept the RIAA's licensing terms for what they are, whether you like them or not. These terms are and should be set by copyright holders (who are in this case the RIAA). If they are acceptable, buy the music. If they aren't, don't buy it. If you believe in copyright, but also believe that customers should be able to write arbitrary licenses for IP they don't own, you hold completely contradictory views.

Re:Finally!

[TheoMurpse]

If counterfeiting were legal and everyone did it, money would become worthless and the economy would become irrelevant.

Right there you blur the line by confusing money with music. Of course, if there is rampant counterfeiting of money, the economy would become irrelevant. However, if there was rampant counterfeiting of intellectual property, the economy wouldn't become irrelevant. The IP industries would change (perhaps to one where only volunteers make IP, but that's unrelated to my point). However, the economy focused on material, non-counterfeitable goods would survive.

And they CANNOT sue you for copyright infringement

[mybecq]

And they CANNOT sue you for making noncommercial copies onto qualifying media:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 10 > SUBCHAPTER D > 1008

Mods!!!

[starakurva]

I wonder if it would be possible to mod an *entire thread* "Redundant"....

I love bashing the RIAA as much as anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together (I've got SIX), but couldn't we all just discuss something a bit more original, like how Linusx is better than MicroSnoopy?

Just for the record, though -

* RIAA bad
* M$ ba-a-a-ad
* Open source goood
* FIRE BAAAAAD!
* Rocky CAN beat up Rambo
* ....and yes, I *do* own the road.

Don't take drugs, kids...

Re:Mods!!!

[starakurva]

Thanks for the 0 score, anonymous fuckwit.
Goes to show that genius can bring one to new heights, or new depths...

I dont need negative karma cos some genuine nerd (the antisocial types that most everyone does not like) decided to mod me down...

IT WAS A LITTLE BLAST OF HUMOR, ASSHEAD.

I'll just go back to not contributing, than trying to please the Uber-Jerks

Re:Such a tax *was* added to certain types of CD-R

[Anonymous Coward]

He said CD burner, not CD player. Any "consumer digital audio recorder" is subject to SCMS copy protection, recorder tax, and media tax. See: AHRA.

In practice, consumer DAT and DCC became extinct quickly. Pretty much all MiniDisc equipment and all MD-Audio blanks in stores were and are taxed (even as Sony has removed analog recording jacks and optical digital recording jacks).

The same goes for standalone home stereo type CD burners and the blanks they use.

Re:Your solution is pretty good

[symbolic]

I've always advocated a boycott (and have done this myself for a few years now). As long as one is purchasing used CDs that are legal, it's killing two birds with one stone....well, about 1.5 birds, because the RIAA is still getting the money from the first sale. Seems like an OK compromise for those who just have to get their fix.

*cough* Bullshit *cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, simple bromides like "CD prices should be more reasonably priced" won't cut it.

Nice long rambling explanation there, but I can find used cd's for half the price of new. Used cd stores have overhead. I commonly find cds at CDBaby for $5-8 a pop. Certainly those guys have overhead and salaries to pay too. Downloads could certainly be cheaper. Of the 99 cents Apple charges at the iTMS, about 30 goes to the credit card processor, 10 goes to apple 10 goes to the artist and the other 50 goes to the record company, who by the way, have done squat diddly other than authorize Apple to sell the tune. (In contrast, unsigned Indies keep the lion's share of the 99 cents for their tracks.)

In short, I call bullshit. Explain it with gross/net margin, shipping, returns, price protection or whatever. We all know better. The prices 'the industry' charges are too high and the extra is going to the RIAA's Adolescents Litigation fund, the 'lobby congress for infinite copyrights' fund, the 'lobby congress for higher blank media levies' fund, and of course, payola.

Yet you sit there and tell me they aren't over charging even in the face of rock solid evidence to the contrary. Either you are badly misinformed or deliberately spreading lies. They are the thieves. They steal from me with blank CD levies. They steal from their customers with price fixing. They steal from the public domain with copyright extensions. I will never willingly give them another dime of my money. EVER.

Free & Legal Music
Boycott the RIAA
The shit list. Do no business with these labels.

but Apple's research appears to indicate that there more consumers like me than you.

CUSTOMERS

SALES TO END USERS ONLY
The iTunes Music Store sells products to end user customers only.

You will not find the word "consumer" anywhere in that agreement. The word consumer implies that I will somehow deplete my supply of music after it is purchased and therefore be compelled to buy more. Customers on the other hand have the prerogative to buy something else entirely or buy nothing at all. If you do not provide value to your customers, they will go elsewhere. The RIAA is simply witnessing that.

New RIAA report

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA's chief executive, Mitch Bainwol, has just released a new study showing that "remembering a song" is now the most utilized method for song piracy.

He claims that fans have acquired almost twice as many songs by "remembering" them than have been acquired by recordable media and p2p networks.

Mitch Bainwol went to to state that the music industry is losing billions of dollars a year in "illegal remembering" and is calling on congress to stop this situation.

Isn't it obvious?

[tkrotchko]

The RIAA is looking to get a blank CD tax in the U.S.

Not just on "blank audio CD's", but every blank CD sold for any purpose.

This is step one in the campaign.

Step two is to contact your congressman and remind him of the campaign contribution they made to him last time

Step three....

Don't joke, this happens

[tentimestwenty]

In Canada, the CRTC collects money for public performance of music recordings. This is generally for record stations to pay royalties to Canadian artists every time one of their songs is played to support home grown artists. Unfortunately the practice changed recently to include any business or person playing music which could be heard by an arbitrary amount of people. Collections officers were simply walking into businesses, restaurants, etc. and asking for a cheque to "compensate" artists. I remember there even being a story about it on Slashdot. It was ironic that we could be charged for playing music in our record store, even though we were actively trying to sell CDs by Canadian artists, thus supporting the industry.

Your numbers don't add up

[tkrotchko]

"The $13 you pay for a CD covers all the operating costs (salary, overhead including shrinkage, advertising) of the retailer, as well as the distributor"

Of course, I buy CD's from BMG music and with shipping, CD's typically cost about $7 for RIAA backed music. Yes, that includes shipping. So that implies that its possible to sell CD's for $5-6 without shipping and still make a reasonable profit.

Maybe...just maybe, they should cut the list price of a CD from $18-20 to $9-10 and let retailers cut the price down to $7-8 on sale.

Of course, the hard part is that once you buy up the back collection, they've got to come out with new musical acts worth buying. But if they increase the market size rather than the price, that will give everybody the opportunity to sell more records, including bands that may not get a shot under the current way of doing business.

But consumer CD recorders are not the problem

[LionMage]

However, those consumer-grade CD recorders (the ones that look and feel like stereo components, because that's what they're intended to be) implement something called SCMS. That's Serial Copy Management System. These recorders also mandate the use of higher-cost recordable CD media (CD-R "for music" discs, instead of CD-R "for data"); a portion of that higher cost goes to pay a "piracy tax" to the RIAA, I believe. (It might be another recording industry body which manages those funds, but you get the idea.)

SCMS insures that you can copy a CD, but you can't make a copy of a copy. So yeah, Philips and Sony make decks that can dub from one disc to another. But you'll never see mass piracy being committed with these devices.

SCMS is mandated by the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (in the United States, at least). However, computers, hard drives, MP3 players, and computer optical media drives are exempted from the AHRA. So most consumers buy the unrestricted technology (computers with CD-R/W drives or DVD-/+R drives) and use that preferentially. And guess what? Data CDs burned with Red Book audio play just fine in most standard CD players. Since the hardware used to burn these discs doesn't have to include SCMS, it doesn't, so piracy becomes an issue.

Philips and Sony would like you to buy these dubbing decks, because at least then, they know they can keep a cap on piracy. (They'll never expect the rate to go to zero, but it would plateau at a level these companies consider "tolerable.") Consumers just don't want such recording appliances when their computers do a much better job for less money, and don't hobble them with any restrictions.

The real problem is bigger than piracy

[Enrique1218]

I believe in copyright and that people should make money off their creation so I don't like piracy. But when it comes music piracy, I increasingly adament against not pirating music. It is not because I believe RIAA is particularly more deserving of respecting copyright. But rather, the sleaze that they peddle spreads out uncheck degrading our values and culture. The lifestyle they advocate of sex, drugs, and violence is marketed directly at children. With the cost of a CD, there was at least an economic barrier to limit their exposure to this sleaze. Now, any kid with a computer can get the latest trash telling them to party, have sex, and do drugs. You don't have songs glorifying doing homework, going to college, or at least wearing condoms. We wonder why Americans are geting dumber with each successive generation. It is going to get worst and piracy is going cause a real problem that I fear can't be solved.

If you don't believe me, I have examples, I know people who took greater than decade to graduate college (BS degrees). It wasn't that they were stupid but rather they rather party than study. I know people who had kids at sixteen and won't even go to college. Again, this wasn't because they were stupid but rather they had sex without condoms. The above all actively purchase music. Luckily for me, I never could afford a album. I never bought or really listen to music alot. I zipped through college with honors, am getting a master degree, and will probably move on to get a Ph.D.

Re:The real problem is bigger than piracy

[dmaxwell]

So music leads to misery, eh? Make an exception and get yourself a copy of Joe's Garage. Among other things, it is a devastating satire of that very idea.

Of all the things you can get in trouble with, even the most trite or profane music is fairly innocuous. Could it be that some of these people were destined to be directionless flakes regardless of their taste in entertainment? Just get rid of everything that makes life worth living and then....life will be worth living. Makes sense to me!

Re:The real problem is bigger than piracy

[juanbobo]

You are denying people of any responsibility to make decisions themselves. Music doesn't do anything other than vibrate your ear drums, people add their own meaning to it. Kids are imressionable, that is why it is important for adults to step in and guide them. I also think it is important for kids to see the world for what it really is, the good and the bad. Only then will they know how to make their own decisions. Too many parents hide reality from their kids and when they start to grow up they don't know how to react to violence and sex. They are confused and fearful about them. America is especially repressed and consequently disfunctional socially. Aside from that, we're all proud of your quest for education, but why do you go? These days there seems to be too much of a push to go to college solely to have a future and support your family, but does anyone go anymore to learn? You spoke as if you were proud to work your way up the social ladder. I feel bad for those who feel like they have something to prove. There is no battle, just be true to yourself and enjoy learning. Learning should not be considered a duty, but a natural way to understand yourself and environment; to make living easier. What is taught in books is only a small portion of what can be understood.

Legal Advice

[Hao Wu]

Do not burn your songs to CDs to give to friends. It is illegal, and you are causing problems for a whole industry.

Use recordable DVD media instead. More efficient, and therefore less chance of being caught with many stacks of pirated CDs in your sock drawer.

Re:WTF--I pay them royalties, how is this "piracy?

[LionMage]

Because most consumers use data-grade CD-Rs that they burn on their computers, instead of "Audio/Music CD-R" discs which are only required for consumer-grade CD recorders sold as stereo components. Data-grade CD-Rs play just fine in most standard CD players, and are all you need to burn Red Book compliant audio on a computer.

Consumer-grade CD recorders pretty much failed in the U.S. market because computers do the same job better, with more flexibility. The higher blank media cost didn't exactly help with their adoption, either. And since computers and data-grade CD-recorders are exempted from the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), any Red Book disc burned on a computer doesn't have to include SCMS; the consumer-grade recorders out there, on the other hand, must use SCMS, which insures that you can't make copies of copies.

If you're buying and using CD-R media specifically for music applications, then you are either very principled (in which case, I salute you), or you enjoy pissing your money away needlessly. Or else you're forced to use the media because that's what your recording deck requires, if you actually have one of those.

Where are thies pirated CDs?

[Felinoid]

When the RIAA was screaming fuzzy blue mud about P2P there wasn't much actual piracy going on.
At least not as much as recordable media piracy. Tapes and CDrs were being past around by friends.

But the big threat was P2P.
Years later P2P is now well out of hand.
Pre-release versions of new TV shows and movies end up on P2P networks. Every soung you could ever want. Everything.

So now the RIAA wants to go after recordable media.

My recomendation is simple,
Back up your computer to CDr.

A good idea reguardless of the situation but even more so right now.
Security and reliability aside stuff happends to Linux boxes so back up everything to CDr.
Macs are hardly perfict, back them up as well.
I don't even need to tell you what happends to Windows... Back up and back up again.

Now back up all your CDs to MP3s.

But don't make CDrs of your music.

Of course don't buy music backed by the RIAA but you already knew that. Havn't done so for years. Howver it's worth a reminder.

Whoops! Correction

[LionMage]

Turns out the "piracy tax" (aka royalty) on blank media I spoke of is handled by the U.S. Copyright Office; they act as the middle-man for the money. The AARC (the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies) disposes monies for the Sound Recordings Fund that the AHRA established. (The AHRA established two "funds" for where this money goes -- they look like escrow accounts to me. The other fund is called the Musical Works Fund, which has to do with the copyrights over musical composition, not recordings.)

BOHICA!

[mousse-man]

The next thing they'll come after is hard disks and backup tapes, both used to conveniently store lots of data....

The biggest cost in a RIAA record

[Anonymous Coward]

That really big expense that leads to "only" 20% "profit" in a major label record is promotional costs. Another word for promotional costs is payola.

Digital Millennium fair use rights

[Arru]

Luckily, such between-friends copying tends to be well under the radar of most copyright holders, so it's one of those tree-falls-in-the-forest things. It's when one puts a track in one's P2P share directory for thousands of "friends" on the Internet that copyright holders tend to take notice.

in the 80s and early 90s it was under the radar. Nowadays the RIAA are using the fight against filesharing and whatnot to push technology into a situation where you won't be able to copy between friends, not because of legislation but due to DRM.

Because they're evil? In a way. Because they can make more money that way? Absolutely. DRM of today tend to guarantee (within the limits of the technology) that the media isn't unauthorisedly copied, which means not copied at all most of the time. This leaves the rightsholders (the only people alllowed to copy) in charge of backups, but are they taking up on this responsibility? No.

Case in point: Apple's DRM model basically means you rent the music for a one time charge. They could just register who's bought what and let s/he dowload this again if the file is damaged or lost. But they don't. And Apple isn't even the baddest of the bunch in terms of fair use.Razor-sharp DRM requires a new similarily well-defined fair use right. We don't have that yet and won't get it short of a lot of ranting on the right people.

Re:Digital Millennium fair use rights

[JetTredmont]

Case in point: Apple's DRM model basically means you rent the music for a one time charge.

Huh? In my day, we used to call that "buying", not "renting".

In any case, unlike CD protections which forbid fair use, Apple's DRM explicitly allows for you to make multiple copies of all the music you own, and the software even reminds you to do so on occasion. Does it allow you to give that music to friends and family (which, as has already been corrected, is NOT fair use, but rather "not enough of a problem for rights-holders to go after until 'friends' suddenly included any internet loser who connected to my Gnutella host")? No, it doesn't. Again, though, that's hardly a poor DRM definition, as it echoes the accepted boundary of rights and makes those explicit rather than "just don't do it too much or you'll get caught".

Now, punk ass bitch CD DRM schemes that don't even allow for media backup? That's just stupid, and DOES trample on accepted "fair use" privileges for the sake of "defending" (quite ineptly, I might add) copy rights.

Pick the right horses in this battle. IMHO it's pretty clear that Apple's a whole lot closer to caring about your rights and privileges than the various other parties jockeying for seats at this table.

Re:Digital Millennium fair use rights

[Arru]

Case in point: Apple's DRM model basically means you rent the music for a one time charge. Huh? In my day, we used to call that "buying", not "renting".

Times change, dude. With the ITMS you have to connect to Apple whenever you switch computer. Without Apple's servers saying yes and supplying the magic code, "your" music just sits there on the hard drive taking up space. Furthermore, Apple reserves the right to change the rules at any time:

You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case

And more to the point: Termination of the Service. Apple reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service (or any part or content thereof) at any time with or without notice to you, and Apple will not be liable to you or to any third party should it exercise such rights.

In this case termination means that you are not allowed to play "your" music anymore, Apple device or not. In contrast, when you actually buy stuff the manufacturer does not reserve the right to take it back. Bet you didn't think of it that way - we tend not to but instead expect certain minimal freedoms with things we buy. I guess that's fair use, and it's not necessarily a legal definition.

Re:Digital Millennium fair use rights

[tolkienfan]

In the past you used to actually OWN the copy (not the RIGHTS, of course).

A book for example. You own the actual physical book.

But with downloaded tracks, you don't own the "bits". And with DRM, the content provider can (and does) limit you well beyond the law.

Don't believe me? A recent example was a public domain track released in eBook format. The provider prevented all kinds of things, including the read aloud feature. This was public domain, remember. There are no restrictions on what anyone can do legally, but the DRM prevented it anyway.

Re:Digital Millennium fair use rights

[Arru]

Indeed. And in my eyes this calls for legal rights of the consumer of which there are currently none relating to the world of DRM.

Downloading Tunes

[travisco_nabisco]

I would agree that the RIAA is attempting to get rid of the CD as a medium and only distribute protected digital files. I for one, prefer Vorbis for my audio needs and refuse to use iTunes. So, I download from http://www.allofmp3.com/> which allows the choice of bit rate and format before you download the music. And music is priced by file size, so if you want the high quality you pay a bit more for it, but it is still much less than iTunes.

Re:WTF--I pay them royalties, how is this "piracy?

[mikehunt]

I feel for you, I really do. Having just changed the law to make downloading illegal here in Sweden, the government is going to add a similar tax to all recordable media.

Talk about having your cake and eating it!

To RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it a rest!

RIAA are gatekeepers.

[aphor]

If anyone who can afford an iPod can afford to carry a digital recording studio in their pocket, then the barrier to record live music will be low enough for quality recordings of good live music to flood the market. A musician or band can then build up a following and promote themselves with cheap (free) downloads. By the time musicians need major distribution, they will not have to sign crappy boy-band contracts because the P&D will not be able to claim there is a risk that the band will bomb.

Re:What a load of bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Humor.. get it? It was a joke. It makes people laugh, like when your girlfriend laughed the first time she saw your penis.

You Are also employing a red herring

[plasmacutter]

to paraphrase your extreme position:

"the artists the artists the poor poor artists, and EVERYONE who downloads is just making up excuses to rob the poor artists"

This argument is/was NEVER about the artists. The "artists" can't get their cd's onto shelves because of payola to major music retailers, or on the radio because of payola radio.

The truth of the matter is the majority of cd's purchasable through main stream channels provide 90% of their revenue back to the corporations. The average "poor artist" really IS Poor in this respect.. they are only given a few cents out of every cd sold, and the corporation charges them every cent of the production costs which they are required to pay back.

Artists make their money through merchandising, touring, and other transactions which have nothing to do with CD sales, it's the corporations which make the money from the cd sales, and denying them that revenue, even if it involves downloading or disk to disk copying, is just considering the campaign of economic terrorism theyre waging not only on the general public, but on 3rd world nations through FTA's.

Re:You Are also employing a red herring

[ScentCone]

Artists make their money through merchandising, touring, and other transactions which have nothing to do with CD sales

Really? 100% of them? 100% of their income? What about arists that don't tour, and don't bother with t-shirt sales? And further, why do you care if an artist chooses to use a separate company to handle her business dealings, and carry all of the overhead of studio time, distribution, etc? It's a choice. There's absolutely no reason that an artist can't go another direction, and many do. But what you're saying is that artists are too dumb to know what they're doing (those poor, poor dumb artists), and that only you know what's best for them, which includes not paying them what they're asking for their recordings.

Artists make money through multiple channels, and recording sales is one of them. If you don't like that an artist has chosen that route, then don't pretend that you like that artist.

As for your "paraphrasing" of me, you're completely incorrect. I didn't say that "everyone" who downloads is making up excuses. Just the ones who do so against the artists' expressed wishes. The millions of downloads from places like iTunes indicates that there are still plenty of people left who understand that to be a fan of an artist means actually taking that person at their word, and showing a little integrity in the process.

Shall I "paraphrase" you now? "Musicians are too dumb to know what's good for them. They should stick to traveling to bars 200 nights a year, and selling t-shirts. I will show them how much I pity them by not following them from bar to bar, but instead by enjoying a nice, digital recording of their work that I've elected not to pay for, even though that's what the band has asked that I do. I love that band! But they're so dumb, they need my help to see that they can't make good businesses decisions. I'll teach them how to make better decisions by ripping them off. They don't need the $0.85 they'd make if I buy download their CD legally - they need my sage advice! That, and the advice of 1000 people I don't know who will also be making copies of what I just got without paying. Then they'll be smart and stop trying charge for their work! Think how much happier they'll be, and how much better their future recordings will be once they're spending all of their time in bars! Of course, copyrights and whatnot should still apply to t-shirt logos, since I wouldn't want some third party to "share" the band's print artwork and sell t-shirts that don't profit the band, because then they'd be getting ripped off... oh, wait."

Re:You Are also employing a red herring

[plasmacutter]

wow.. i've never seen such militance..

actually.. it's not a choice for them..

Before they can go into contract talks with a major label, they must sign another contract which basically states that if they pull out of negotiations they are not allowed to approach another label.. i believe the term is "letter of intent". These letters of intent have a tendency to lack a duration as well. In other words.. they are placed in a position where they can either take what terms are given to them, or kiss their careers goodbye.

Then there is the "works for hire" provision which basically means they relinquish THEIR copyrights to the major label.

The artist gets screwed left right and center, it has nothing to do with stupidity; they have no other way because their industry is under the vicelike grip of a cartel.

This cartel wields too much political power, and denies kids their futures and sometimes their meals by sueing them and their families for a few measly songs which they could easily record off the radio to the same effect. Then there is the MASSIVE COLLATERAL DAMAGE of the DMCA and it's effects of essentially bringing technological innovation, competition, and user rights to a halt.

I have the distinct feeling that if the ARITST actually held the copyright power they would not only be better compensated, but more compassionate.

"The millions of downloads from places like iTunes indicates that there are still plenty of people left who understand that to be a fan of an artist means actually taking that person at their word, and showing a little integrity in the process. "

Oh.. so we the people should show integrity? They don't show integrity. They load their files with restrictive DRM which hobbles fair use and treat me like a thief! Did it ever occur to them that if i bought the file from itunes it demonstrates i probably am not interested in sharing it online? This doesn't even get into things such as my wish to at least have a choice as to bitrate or format.

These labels treat both their artists and their customers like sh**, and the only people who buy from that store are either too technically illiterate, or are cowtowing to the labels rather than fighting for the rights guaranteed the general public in the copyright act of 1976.

before you go off painting me with some wierd brush, I'll have you know I'm (in the real world, not on the internet) acquainted with 4 different independent musicians. They are happy with people sharing their songs, and are happy to see me enjoy them.
I'm not saying everyone is so charitable, but they consider their music to be an art form, an expression which they will stick to, even if nobody even LISTENS, let alone pays.

Re:You Are also employing a red herring

[JetTredmont]

The artist gets screwed left right and center, it has nothing to do with stupidity; they have no other way because their industry is under the vicelike grip of a cartel.


If I may paraphrase my preschool teacher: "It takes two to screw."

It seems that for a contract to be binding the artist needs to sign it as well as the recording label. If you don't like the terms, screw them, and don't sign!

Oh, you say, a band can never "make it" without the backing of a label? Hmm. And here, I thought that bands made all their money hopping amongst bars and selling t-shirts, none of which require a label.

Gee, sounds like something doesn't quite add up here.

I don't like the RIAA either. I think it abuses the power it's been given. But to claim the poor little innocent artists both had no choice but to use the RIAA AND are completely undamaged by your theft of RIAA materials because they really get nothing out of their label contracts is just plain disingenuous.

Re:You Are also employing a red herring

[ScentCone]

Careful there, cowboy. All that usin' reason n' logic n' whatnot is likely to git you run right out Slashdottown.

Also, you know the rules: no using words like "disigenuous" actually correctly, and in the proper context here on slashdot. What were you thinking, man?

Anyway, thanks for having a clue and calling a twit a twit.

Re:You Are also employing a red herring

[ScentCone]

wow.. i've never seen such militance

Wow, I've never seen such 1) exaggeration, 2) misunderstanding of the word "militance"

Before they can go into contract talks with a major label, they must sign another contract

So, so not true. There's a saying among musicians (in Nashville, for example): "Say yes to everything, and sign nothing." The days of Billy Joel being so naive that he loses the income from the first third of his career are over. Musicians have never (thanks to industry message boards, "how not to get screwed" books written by experienced artists, and so on) had more resources than they do today to do two things: strike a smart deal with a publisher, and/or avoid traditional publishers. Think how many times you hear about artists starting their own label so that they can run things the way they want.

they have no other way because their industry is under the vicelike grip of a cartel

How? What is actually stopping artists from starting their own labels? In fact, I'm sure that these people would be very surprised to hear that they're part of an evil cartel. And the people running smaller, independent labels that have been surprised at how much business they're doing probably aren't paying their cartel dues, despite what you say.

denies kids their futures and sometimes their meals by sueing them and their families for a few measly songs which they could easily record off the radio to the same effect

And this is because these kid's parents weren't intelligent enough to remind kids not to take stuff they're not entitled to, or because the kids you're referring to are totally aware that what they're doing is illegal, and are just deciding to take the chance they won't get caught? Whether they can or cannot "just get it off the radio" isn't germaine. Using P2P systems, we're talking about spreading around bit-for-bit exact copies of the product that the artist wants to sell, and deliberately avoiding paying for it. It's simple: people say they like the musician, they want the music, and despite the fact that the musician is set up to sell their work, some of their "fans" decide to just rip it off and save a couple of bucks. Part of that deal is the risk that someone may actually call them on it, and even prosecute.

They don't show integrity

What are you talking about? They couldn't be simpler, or more honest. They say: "Here, enjoy the music that I spent the last year of my life making. It will cost you a dollar. If that's too much, then please go find a musician that doesn't want to charge you." How much simpler could that be?

treat me like a thief

Do you think that a pizza shop is treating you like a thief when they have you pay before they serve you your pizza? Does a gas station treat you like a thief when they ask you to use your PIN when paying at the pump? Is a movie theater treating you like a thief when they have you buy and show a ticket before you sit down in front in front of their big screen? Is a retailer that keeps their MP3 players in a locked case treating you like a thief? No, these people are all reacting to the reality that there really are thieves, and lots of them. So they have to react to that reality. Do you leave your car unlocked when you park it downtown? Fair use, by the way, doesn't mean that the person who creates the material in quesiton is under any obligation to make it easy for people to create bit-for-bit copies of their work without their support. If you really must have a perfect copy of something for a project that cannot exist without getting around such DRM as may be involved, then get the artist you're copying from involved. But we both know you're not talking about fair use. You're talking about "sharing" the file in an unlimited way, and about your own inabilit

Libraries can levy fines...

[Barbarian]

Libraries lend out original copies of books, and CDs, and DVDs, and other media. They don't seem to require special procedures due to the nature of the media.

This is because libraries can levy fines and make you pay for replacements, with the force of the local government behind them, usually. If someone gets pissed off at you who used to be your friend, it's hard to fine him, and not worth going to small claims court for $10.

Haven't we gone over this already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Three times, no less?
The VCR. It was going to kill the movie industry! (It didn't; in fact it helped them)
Home taping. It was going to kill the record industry! (It didn't)
CD Burners, round 1. Once again, it's going to kill the record industry. Certainly doesn't seem to have done so.

Now, it's CD Burners, round 2. They're going to kill the record industry!

Any predictions on the outcome, folks? ;)

Oh hell yes we do.

[GomezAdams]

Here's an URL to the TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 10 > SUBCHAPTER C > 1004 wording. 1004. Royalty payments

http://netsecurity.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.ht m?zi=1/XJ&sdn=netsecurity&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.law .cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2F17%2F1004.html

(a) Digital Audio Recording Devices.-- (1) Amount of payment.-- The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording device imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 2 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such device shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such device. (2) Calculation for devices distributed with other devices.-- With respect to a digital audio recording device first distributed in combination with one or more devices, either as a physically integrated unit or as separate components, the royalty payment shall be calculated as follows: (A) If the digital audio recording device and such other devices are part of a physically integrated unit, the royalty payment shall be based on the transfer price of the unit, but shall be reduced by any royalty payment made on any digital audio recording device included within the unit that was not first distributed in combination with the unit. (B) If the digital audio recording device is not part of a physically integrated unit and substantially similar devices have been distributed separately at any time during the preceding 4 calendar quarters, the royalty payment shall be based on the average transfer price of such devices during those 4 quarters. (C) If the digital audio recording device is not part of a physically integrated unit and substantially similar devices have not been distributed separately at any time during the preceding 4 calendar quarters, the royalty payment shall be based on a constructed price reflecting the proportional value of such device to the combination as a whole. (3) Limits on royalties.-- Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or (2), the amount of the royalty payment for each digital audio recording device shall not be less than $1 nor more than the royalty maximum. The royalty maximum shall be $8 per device, except that in the case of a physically integrated unit containing more than 1 digital audio recording device, the royalty maximum for such unit shall be $12. During the 6th year after the effective date of this chapter, and not more than once each year thereafter, any interested copyright party may petition the Librarian of Congress to increase the royalty maximum and, if more than 20 percent of the royalty payments are at the relevant royalty maximum, the Librarian of Congress shall prospectively increase such royalty maximum with the goal of having no more than 10 percent of such payments at the new royalty maximum; however the amount of any such increase as a percentage of the royalty maximum shall in no event exceed the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index during the period under review. (b) Digital Audio Recording Media.-- The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.

Re:What a load of bull

[qnetter]

Wow, and I thought the distinguishing characteristic of humor is that it's funny.

The RIAA is fighting yet another losing battle

[crovira]

They have been anti-technology since the invertion of the piano roll. They have fought, and lost, their Luddite crusade against every technological advance.

They are caught between their desire for an infinite source of revenue, limited by the number of hours in a day times the number of ears out there, and their need/desire for us NOT TO LISTEN and therefore forget what we just heard.

But music is a communal activity. Its not just consumption of crap in an elevator. It is played by somebody and listened to by somebody else.

They're pissed that my memory of a performance is enhanced by technological means. They don't give a crap about what that performance is of. They only know that when I listen to my music* they're not getting paid.

The CD was okay as long as they were in control of the means of production, and able to charge what ever they thought the market would bear, but now that I can media-shift digital recordings, I don't need them AT ALL.

The **AAs are running scared and scared people with weapons are the worst in almost any situation.

iTunes is a sea change because the cost of distribution, which the RIAA always controlled, are virtually nil.

I record my music to DVDs anyway. CDs are too SMALL for my collection. (CD ~650MBytes, DVD ~4.5GByte. I've got over 800 DCs and 400 vynil albums. Guess what I'm backing up my computer to? Right...)

*) Note why MS and Real and any other subscription service is doomed to a smaller market share. Its MY music. I bought the recording becuse I wanted it to become MY music. I don't like to spend my money listening to their music (like I have to in an elevator.)

we should all just pay RIAA $100/month

[justdrew]

since we hear music all the time

Re:What a load of bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry,
    I was just venting :(

iTMS License Allows Recording to CD

[pizero]

"29 per cent of the recorded music obtained by listeners last year came from content copied onto recordable media."

This is such BS, the music companies are already paid for consumer's fair-use (it could notionally be piracy) through a tax on recordable media. Now they come up with a statistic that clearly includes legal copies of music and pretend it is a percentage of criminal acts. I sincerely hope my elected officials aren't that greedy.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that sharing a mix CD with a friend is fair use. If the RIAA wants to profit from that, they already do. If they want stricter regulations, they should give up the subsidy.

curious numbers

[daevt]

I wonder what respectable method they used to determine how much music people got in hard copy from their friends, versus downloading, and buying. I suppose you could use sales figure for the last one, but one is forced to be skeptical of anybody how can produce numbers on how many burned CDs were used for "copying and distributing music" versus "data back-up", or "copying music for other purposes" (I only used burned CDs in my car so that if the CD booklet gets stolen I don't lose all of my originals). I wonder if they count my copying and distrubuting music that I write and record in the 29%...

copying

[tedmg09130913]

A lot of people here seem to think that theoretical profits = real profits. That isn't necessarily the case. Simply because a person decides that a song isn't worth paying for, but is worth listening to for free doesn't make it theft. I suspect that a lot of people who complain about the copyright infringment doesn't equal theft arguments would be against public libraries as well! In these places you can read books for free without paying for them. Some might call that theft but it really isn't. What this really about is that authors and middlemen want to make a fixed calculatable amount of per money per sale of song or program. In the future they will have to accept that a song or program is worth exactly as much as the individual thinks it is. Authors and middlemen will have to rely on people paying willingly for songs or software. This is big part of why linux is seen as such a threat by microsoft and other software companies. Forcing authors and middlemen to rely on donations for survival will certainly lead to big changes in the software and music industries. It won't lead to the ruination of the economy because a lot of real goods exist that can't be made or copied very cheaply. It will lead to the most ethical way to sell music and software. In which one person or company doesn't decide how much a song or program will be worth. When you hear people or companies saying that they have the right to decide the value of their software or music, they are being arrogant. They can't simply proclaim how much each program or song will be worth to each individual(this is why a lot of programs have been discontinued for lack of profits). The individual will decide how much a song or program is worth.

Is music worth this aggravation?

[tjstork]

Just don't listen to music! It sounds crazy, but, there's plenty of things to do besides to just listen to tunes.

there is an answer

[podRZA]

I did some research on this topic a while back and found out that there is a reasonable solution called collective licensing or something...it's basically the way radio stations pay for the legal right to play music. I'm not sure if its a tax or whatever, but it was what was agreed upon after the invention of radio, which, btw, was also initially viewed as piracy. In the case of music downloading, the ISP's would pay what the radio stations pay. I blatantly download lots of music, never pay for it, and do so with no remorse. That's just how it is. For me the main reason is not because of money at all but how easy it is. I can sit here, browse allmusic.com, figure out what I want, and get it, all very quickly. I will never stop or change. There are many people like me. For the RIAA to make money off of us, they must embrace some kind of business model where the ISP's are paying them, not the actual downloader. Lawsuits will not work, we all know this.

Looking at from a different angle

[serutan]

The headline could read, "Music Copyrights a Threat to Recordable Media and P2P Networks." It all depends on what you take as a given. Music copyrights were a good way for some people to make money from 20th Century technology, but that doesn't mean they should determine the evolution of 21st Century technology.

RIAA is wrong!

[adriantam]

human ears are more of a source of piracy than recordable media and P2P networks!

without ears, nobody will priate RIAA sutff.

Nothing is going to change...

[RecycledElectrons]

Remember when the RIAA / MPAA sued to get VCRs banned?

Remember when they said they wanted file sharing networks banned, and then they would be happy?

(And remember when Hitler wanted one more little piece of land, and then he'd be happy?)

Remember when eBay banned all sales of s/w on "recordable media" thereby making it against their rules for me to sell Linux on CD-Rs and DVD-Rs at cost?

I suggest you read anything you can find by "Claire Wolf" - the only time I ever disagreed with her was when she said "it's not time to shoot the bastards yet." I disagree because nothing is ever going to change until we shoot the bastards.

Andy Out!

AlpineFox rides again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Yes, the RIAA is hopping up our asses again. They cannot stamp out piracy, it has been and always shall be.

The RIAA cana come beating on my door. They can sue me for all the money I dont have, then like the creditors that are after me, I will ignor them andmysteriously forget how to speak any human based language.

YIPYAPYAPyipyipYAP!!!

The one and only Lincoln based arctic fox....

Alpine

DAMN!

[AlpineFox]

Looking over the RIAA site I realized theres a bunch of music I forgot to download.

Ever considered this?

[NeoSapian]

Maybe rock stars shouldn't be so rich. Maybe the recording industry shouldn't exist in its current form. I think what we are seeing is the death of the recording industry or its attempt at fighting evolution. It is becoming extinct through the power of information. In the light of the freedom (whether that freedom is warranted or not we can freely share bits) to share information their profits diminish because we realize that music is art. Art is to be shared to all as a gift to the world -- and good art always finds a way of doing that. The purest passion behind art is to create not to make millionaires. That's the reason for all the shit music that we have today. Because its all about the money. Maybe we would see some real talent come out when there wasn't the glimmer of fame and fortune to hold onto. Maybe the P2P, file sharing, piracy, and ripping is all part of the world saying how pissed off we are that we go to work every day for 60 years and not make as much money as some half-wit who got lucky making a song that they can't even sing LIVE. I support artists I like. But maybe the artists should get real too. Maybe they should get off their expensive hot rods and mega sized cribs and get with the f'ing program and realize they are just a bunch of performers who do less for the world than the person who serves me my Big Mac so that I can fix someone's computer. No one really thinks the recording industry deserves to make billions of dollars. No one really cares if P-diddy or 50 cent makes their million. That's why the songs get ripped, filleted, and spewed across in bits across the net; because a convicted "yay" dealer can become a millionaire. So MUCH for the American dream... its been tainted by filth who twist it to their own sick purposes. And worse we EAT IT UP! We just can't get enough. Keep pirating, America... paint it f****ing black. The more DRM they cram the more cracks will come. You can't stop the flow of information. It is the very WILL of the people of this planet.

No, let's cut right to the real villian

[Rogerborg]

It's those damn bits. If we could just do away with one, and get back to a good old analogue scale of "zero to whatever" then all this mess could be put back in the bottle, along with the genie.

I call bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few hardcore cases out there who download entire torrents of artists and burn them to cdr, but most people have a collection on their hard drive that usually stays on their hard drive. Some people might burn a new mix on a cdrw (or portable player) for listening on the way to work, but it's usually erased shortly thereafter.

I have heard rumors about them wanting to tax CDR, but it's ridiculous. CDR is becoming (if not) obsolete with all the new memory tech coming out.

yeah, right.

[kioopi]

recordable media [...] source of piracy [...] ...and pockets are a big reason for stealing.

Re:Such a tax *was* added to certain types of CD-R

[MindStalker]

Yea, I meant cd-burner thing is all the cd-burners I have bought have been able to burn music to data cds. So this surprises me.

correct me if I'm wrong

[llamaxing]

I remember years ago when I was into ROMs and Emulators that their hosting sites would always have one of those agreement pages. And on these pages I would see a similar warning, something related to "it's okay to download the ROMs as long as it's for personal use only, and that you already own the original game". I don't know if it's an actual law, but it wouldn't be a bad idea if it were. I download mp3's for the convenience of simply choosing my file and playing it. I don't want to have to switch to a different CD every time a song ends. Personally, today's music is horrible (minus a few execptions, of course), so I don't want to have to listen to an entire CD when I only like one or two songs on the album. Moreover, if I'm going for a jog, it's more convenient to have the songs I enjoy playing non-stop. I sure as he** am not going to bring my entire CD collection with me, and I use more battery power when the cd player skips than I am actually listening to the music. Here's some truth for ya. There have been countless times (ok, maybe two or three times) when I'd download mp3s by a random artist just for the sake of hearing something new, liking the song so much, and going out and buying the album. On a final note, I can't wait to see what politics a decade from now will be like. Who knows. Maybe we'll even have politicians who know a thing or two about technology!

Too late

[bufalo_1973]

This is already done here in Spain. We have a "canon" (yes, they call it that) for every CD or DVD sold here. And I think France has it too.

This is news?

[iminplaya]

Recordable media is why we have copyright! It all started with the satanical printing press. I'm surprised pen and paper are still legal. Why are we even paying attention to these people any more?

Sorry....

[Anonymous Coward]

666 comments (Spill at 50!)
...I just had to undo the Evil...

BS

[plasmacutter]

"The days of Billy Joel being so naive that he loses the income from the first third of his career are over. Musicians have never (thanks to industry message boards, "how not to get screwed" books written by experienced artists, and so on) had more resources than they do today to do two things: strike a smart deal with a publisher, and/or avoid traditional publishers."

where do you get this crap.. the riaa website? They control the marketing, they control the radio, they control the stores. So... you can "avoid traditional publishers" and also avoid exposure in 90% of venues, or you can "make a *deal* with the publisher"... anymore of this and i'll suspect you a lobbyist plant.

"Whether they can or cannot "just get it off the radio" isn't germaine. Using P2P systems, we're talking about spreading around bit-for-bit exact copies of the product that the artist wants to sell, and deliberately avoiding paying for it. "

this is a BS argument: if one records off the radio, it has the same economic effect as downloading an mp3, further an mp3 is not a "Bit for bit copy" of anything, it is compressed, and comparable in sound quality to an FM radio stream. A copy is a copy is a copy.

"Fair use, by the way, doesn't mean that the person who creates the material in quesiton is under any obligation to make it easy for people to create bit-for-bit copies of their work without their support"

You don't understand the concepts of fair use and first sale.. and stop repeating that tired old party line about bit for bit copies.

First off, the argument is immaterial as the artist is NOT the copyright holder in this situation, it's a massive corporation. Anyway, the concept of fair use and first sale combine to state affirmative that after you've sold me my product, I have a right to time shift, space shift, and transform it AS I SEE FIT within my own home without asking anyones permission. And any implication that anyone should be able to control what I do in my own home smacks of facism. How about I put a storm trooper in your car to smack you whenever you don't drive it how I like?

"Ah. First, the internet is part of the real world"

As far as human interaction is concerned you're damned right it's not! How many people do you speak to face to face online? How many people do you watch spending hours and hours on end composing? How many people do you share a drink over online? The internet is NOT the real world when it comes to interaction.. look at RPG's for god sake man.

"I know more about the costs of being a musician (in the studio, or on the road) and about sources of income upon which they depend."
You know about the costs of the OLD way of being a musician.

My friend built his own stuido for less money than it takes to rent out a single session and produced quality recordings from it.
You can't bring up touring expenses because touring expenses are covered by TICKET SALES, not cd sales.
Then there are the cd's.. which RETAIL for 13cents now... woow what a horrible expense... a printing of $1000 cd's for $130

Why don't you take off the blinders and look at the comparative costs to the rest of society just so your precious RIAA executives can drive a new mercedes next month.

Re:BS

[ScentCone]

where do you get this crap.. the riaa website?

No, from musicians, animators, writers, directors, photographers, videographers, producers, label owners, and others that do business pretty much however they see fit - with, or without involvement with larger companies or industry associations.

They control the marketing

No, they control their own marketing. How am I prevented from running a Google ad, putting up fliers, shipping samples in conjunction with other businesses, using online distribution in ways I choose to create exposure, etc? How does a record label prevent me from doing that? I notice that you conveniently ignored, for example, the long list of independent labels I pointed you to. I know they sort of complicate your argument and might damage your rebel street cred, but you might want to look it over anyway. "They" don't control the marketing, they pay a lot for their own marketing. On the other hand, I've been turned onto all sorts of music I'd never have otherwise heard by subscribing to services like RadioIO. The artists that are showcased there have their CDs advertised, are paid for their airplay, and all based on the staff's appreciation of the quality of the music. Most of what they decide is worthy is vetted from recordings provided by the artists themselves. This is exactly contrary to your tinfoil-lined corporate conspiracy picture of the world. Buy a beer or two less this month, and try them out - you'll find that you're way, way wrong about many of your presumptions.

if one records off the radio, it has the same economic effect as downloading an mp3

No, because the musicians (if they want to be) are paid when the radio station uses their work as part of their day's business operations.

As far as human interaction is concerned you're damned right it's not

I'm thinking you have a typo, there. But would you consider talking to your mom on the phone not "real"? I'm not interacting with you face-to-face right now, any more than you are when you talk to family on the phone. What's your standard, lack of face time? What about when I'm talking to my wife in the next room, where I can't see her, but can hear her? In order to bolster your sense that the things you do online aren't "real," you're applying standards that show your own confusion about reality. Citing MMORPGs is ridiculous. That's not a bit different than people doing old fashioned play-by-mail, or four people sitting around a table playing paper-and-dice D&D. You're confusing communication mechanisms with anonymity, and assuming that anonymity washes away all requirements for respecting an artist's wishes.

You know about the costs of the OLD way of being a musician.

None of what I mentioned has ceased to be true. That you have a friend who put together a cheap studio doesn't change the laws of physics or change what it costs to make environments that have no EM hum, perfect acoustics, and clean power. Shopped for high-end condenser mics that will do justice to oversampled digital recordings of instruments with a huge dynamic range? You don't string up an entire percussion rig with Neumanns or studio-grade AKGs for a few hundred dollars. The pro-grade A-to-D converters that make the quality of recordings of which you're so interested in maintaining your fair use don't just cost a few hundred dollars. I have friends that have a copy of 3D Studio Max and various sorts of desktop renderers. All on hardware they built. They can even laboriously produce some pretty good looking output. But I also have a family member that works for Pixar, where they have to use thousands of machines to render the sort of output we all love to look at (and hear) in feature-length packages. Thousands of machines, managed by huge teams

Re:BS

[plasmacutter]

"No, from musicians, animators, writers, directors, photographers, videographers, producers, label owners, and others that do business pretty much however they see fit - with, or without involvement with larger companies or industry associations. "

I can group these people as to their piece of the cut:

"musicians, animators, directors, and writers": disposables according to their parent publishing houses, given a nearly insignificant minimum of the pie (sometimes just SALARY) and then blamed and even charged for any failure of the product.

"videographers": given a small font mention in the credits, salary for work done, and not much else (given less than group 1 above).

"producers": this camp tends to be split.. there are the independent producers which are laudible and do tend to to things as you characterized them. They also have trouble even getting their dvd's on the shelves (and notice the curious lack of their material on p2p nets as well.. hmm?). If they are not part of this independent group, then they belong in the group below this one.

"label owners, and others that do business pretty much however they see fit - with, or without involvement with larger companies or industry associations. "

These people tend to be in the upper echelons or ownership of "larger companies or industry associations". The are the ones which make the vast majority of the profits, and they are the prime source of dirty dealings, misinformation, bullying tactics, and law buying practiced by their industry associations.

Now, from an economic point of veiw.. the last group mentioned need not be there at all! the market has changed and *gasp* they are not necessary. Imagine that, they'll have to work for their money instead of pillage it from already destitute college students. Without them around, the little guys you claim to champion would get their cuts and be able to hire *gasp* marketing firms to get full exposure without monopoly interference.

"No, they control their own marketing. How am I prevented from running a Google ad, putting up fliers, shipping samples in conjunction with other businesses, using online distribution in ways I choose to create exposure, etc? How does a record label prevent me from doing that? I notice that you conveniently ignored, for example, the long list of independent labels I pointed you to. "

Oh.. i see.. so how many google ads do you hear on your way to work?.. or see during prime time?... if a major label has an ad contract with a tv station..then that TV station will also be able to sell ad space to an indie label without threats from RIAA members of pulling out?
If you ever read the book "the buzzsaw" you'd realize that if news organizations are willing to pull or severely slant stories to keep their bigger clients, then a tv station will have no problem shutting out indie labels. Then there is RADIO.. that lovely payola radio which YOU didn't answer to. I "ignored" that list of labels because they are shut out of the main stream marketing loop and purposefully so, and you still refuse to admit there is a problem with monopoly and trust activity here!

"I know they sort of complicate your argument and might damage your rebel street cred"

oh.. i see.. "rebel street cred" is it? How about the fact that you are in denial, and covering for it with loaded terminology and snyde slight of hand accusations (i've downloaded illegally less songs than you have). How about the fact that you're defending the financial destruction of families with children and college kids whose only "crime" was to engage in what is a societal norm citing baseless and extremist rhetoric and unproven "harms".

"No, because the musicians (if they want to be) are paid when the radio station uses their work as part of their day's business operations. "

And whose fault is that?.. it's not napster's fault, it's not the college kid's fault, it's not kazaa's fault or torrentreactor's fault.. it's the label's fault! They were offered B

Re:BS

[ScentCone]

"musicians, animators, directors, and writers": disposables according to their parent publishing houses, given a nearly insignificant minimum of the pie (sometimes just SALARY) and then blamed and even charged for any failure of the product.

"Disposables according to their parent publishing houses"? First, it would be interesting to actually see a quote that even begins to reflect that sentiment. But if what you really mean is "business partners which may not have their contracts renewed if it doesn't seem to be working out," then that's a two-way street. A talented artist has their pick of representation, just like a talented athlete does. A musician that has invested her own cash in the making of an inspiring demo (the perfect use for those basement studios) has the ammo to let the many more than "five" labels compete to handle her business matters. Most would-be artists don't have what it takes to support a large audience, so it's not only normal for those speculative contracts to expire in most cases, but for those artists to seek out and work with a more niche label that's better connected to an audience that's a better fit. This isn't a bit different than the fact that most small businesses (IIRC, it's something like 9 out of 10) fail after the first year or two, and those that have invested time and effort into them - no matter how high their original hopes for the talent involved - lose their investments and walk away. People who agree to put up their money and other resources to back a musician take chances, and usually lose. Just like most musicians who quit their "day jobs" to do it all on their own also fail.

given a small font mention in the credits, salary for work done, and not much else

Well, sure. Not every technician is a rock star, or the head cinematographer on a project large enough to risk flat pay in exchange for the more risky proposition of a share of the investment return. Of course, working on more "indy" projects can change that recipe, but the odds of success are that much smaller.

the last group mentioned need not be there at all! the market has changed and *gasp* they are not necessary.

Not necessary? Productions that require lots of time, people, and equipment pretty much demand the backing of people with deep enough pockets to make it through the project. In the case of more successful artists, each project funds the bigger investment in the last. The natural progression for those that really have the discipline and audience is to self-label (and start sponsoring other artists, in time). But the layer is necessary unless you never want to hear anything beyond garage-grade productions or see "The Blair Witch Project" instead of, say, "The Lord Of The Rings."

if a major label has an ad contract with a tv station..then that TV station will also be able to sell ad space to an indie label without threats from RIAA members of pulling out?

If the indie label wants to compete with those ad dollars, they're welcome to. Why, they might even want to get together and pool some resources. Collective bargaining is powerful, and it exactly how other trade associations work. But more to the point, there are hundreds of radio stations, and as so many people here fall all over themselves to point out, there are live performances at which to earn the reputation that leads to other sales.

Lawyer infested eh? Maybe you too should be championing copyright reform

Obviously I'm referring to the larger burden of our litigious society on all forms of human interaction. When you run a small business (say, a record store), you can be ruined by one person who slips on the sidewalk outside your store and sues you out of existence. Despite your tone, you aren't going to find anywhere that I've advocated frivalous lawsuits against people who don't dance around artists' copyrights. A suit that targets the wrong person should be thrown out, and an automatic countersuit should a

Re:BS

[plasmacutter]

Now we get somewhere. IF you don't want to read this post I believe this article blows most of your arguments about 134.2 miles out of the water.

But if what you really mean is "business partners which may not have their contracts renewed if it doesn't seem to be working out,"

Nope, i mean they include in the contract that the artist is the one who foots the bill for the studio time, the equipment, etc. etc. and the major music conglomerate is simply "loaning" them the startup capital... meanwhile this same conglomerate is entitled to upwards of 90% of the record sales revenue, and that's completely separate from the obligation they lay on the bands to pay back the production costs.

"A musician that has invested her own cash in the making of an inspiring demo (the perfect use for those basement studios) has the ammo to let the many more than "five" labels compete to handle her business matters."

I'm sorry but some real market realities are being ignored here. When i point out it's a "monopoly" i mean it's a monopoly. This means they collude and produce "industry standard" contract terms. This means you will get no better deal anywhere else, and then there is the "letter of intent" lockin mechanism I told you of before. The way they do their business is fundamentally unfair, it has nothing to do with the "business savvy" of the group in question.

"Most would-be artists don't have what it takes to support a large audience"

Under your standards of artist quality, bruce springsteen would have never come on the scene. His first album was an absolute flop!

"Well, sure. Not every technician is a rock star, or the head cinematographer on a project large enough to risk flat pay in exchange for the more risky proposition of a share of the investment return."

Yeah, warner music, sony/bmg, emi, 20th century fox, and tristar are so terribly small they can't possibly afford to pay more than salary.

Not necessary? Productions that require lots of time, people, and equipment pretty much demand the backing of people with deep enough pockets to make it through the project. In the case of more successful artists, each project funds the bigger investment in the last. The natural progression for those that really have the discipline and audience is to self-label (and start sponsoring other artists, in time). But the layer is necessary unless you never want to hear anything beyond garage-grade productions or see "The Blair Witch Project" instead of, say, "The Lord Of The Rings."

This is simply not true. I have a work by snuggles called "free speech for sale". It is very professionally made and mastered. I have works by my indie friends which are similarly professionally mastered, and I have works by RIAA artists which don't show any noticeable difference in quality from the other works above. Once again, the studio techs and masterers of today are not what they were yesterday, and since that has become a lost art I see no rational need to invest in expensive equipment which nobody can make proper use of.

As for "blair witch" rather than "lord of the rings", do you remember a series called "babylon 5"? The effects in that show can now be rendered real time by the average game system's hardware, but it's still a compelling show. You don't need millions in equipment to produce a compelling movie or tv show, you just need a small core group with some expertise. Big budget pictures are too bloated, and have terrible writing. You don't need multimillion dollar hyper-realistic special effects if you make a compelling enough plot.

if a major label has an ad contract with a tv station..then that TV station will also be able to sell ad space to an indie label without threats from RIAA members of pulling out? ------->If the indie label wants to compete with those ad dollars, they're welcome to. Why, they might even wan