"Furthermore your implicit connection between people who wish to exercise their rights as customers to receive the highest quality product for their dollar is simply anti-american and probably communistic to boot."
Downloading music via Kazaa in lieu of buying it is not exercising my rights as a consumer.
Like (I'm guessing) most people here, if a CD has DRM, I don't buy it. I'll download it from iTunes instead.
CD DRM, which prevents one from backing up a CD or (in my case) playing in some car CD changers, is incredibly retarded -- no doubt about that. Yet -- and this is the point I've been trying to make -- this does not "force" people to turn to piracy and absolve the pirate of moral issues. Music is not a God-given right; if the CD you want isn't available in a non-DRM version and it's not available on one of the legal services, then the simplest path is to not buy it. But, if you choose to pirate it, be a man and don't try to lay the blame on somebody else. You, and only you, are responsible for your actions.
Now, if you have a moment, can you please explain how being an advocate for copyright holders is Anti-American or even communist? If anything, it's way over on the capitalistic side of the scale -- I believe that if you create something, and if somebody copies it without your permission, you have every right to get pissed off and every right to use every legal mean to go after them. This applies whether you're a songwriter living from royalty check to royalty check, or if you're Microsoft.
"e, here's the part that you music-industry shills can't seem to get right."
Watch it. Not all geeks follow the same moral course that you do.
"It's already easy as pie to get non-DRM encumbered music for free. It's already easy to rip songs and stick them in a Kazaa directory. Mp3's are out there, and there not going away. So iTunes really isn't protecting anything by wrapping their songs up in DRM. It only serves as a way to prevent their own customers from legally accessing music they've purchased. That's not a "compromise," that's a meaningless obstacle course."
Apple's DRM is somewhat like a lock on a car, or the security device on a piece of clothing. There are few auto security systems that can stop somebody who really wants your car, and serious shoplifters can pop that device in the blink of an eye. Likewise, there's no DRM that can't be circumvented, and there's no software copy protection that can't be cracked.
So why, you wonder, do people even bother?
The key to getting this is the understanding that not everybody is as smart as Slashdotters -- just as not every would-be car thief is a pro, and not every shoplifter does it for a living. iTunes, in particular, has done a great job of getting out to the mainstream. A protection mechanism (read: DRM, copy protection, or a car lock) that's good enough to stop 80% of the cases is good enough. In the case of an auto security system, if you put one in your car that causes the potential thief to pick another target, then it's done its job, even though it's not 100% effective. If that relatively easy-to-circumvent security device on the pair of pants in the store prevents the allowance-challenged 14-year-old from going for it, it's done its job. Likewise, if Apple's rather weak DRM is enough to thwart the casual, non-computer expert, then it's certainly a lot better than nothing -- in the eyes of the copyright holder, at least!
"If iTunes sold mp3s, the only possible outcome would be more people actually buying mp3s instead of getting them illegally."
I wish that were true. If everybody were honorable, Kazaa wouldn't have a business model.
"I do not consider it an overly liberal interpertation of this to say that if I own a piece of music medium A, then I am entitled to make a copy of it by downloading it from a third party."
You and I both know that the majority of P2P traffic is not space-shifting or format-shifting. It is people acquiring music that they didn't already own. Additionally, typically when you download something with a P2P client, it goes into your share directory for others to download. Whether or not you own the music already, you are not allowed to let others download it.
This is why the Ninth Circuit Court rejected the original Napster's "space shifting" argument. Click here for an excellent summary of the Napster fair use arguments -- every music pirate who thinks they understand fair use should read it.
The point is this: if you have a physical object, it may get damaged. A CD may get scratched. A car might hit something with enough force to make it unusable. This is a fact of life. If the risk of a scratched CD is a problem, make a backup, or get your music off of iTunes, Napster or any one of the legal download services. Likewise, auto insurance will help protect you if you damage your car.
Sure, backing up a CD or installing iTunes or signing up for car insurance can be a pain. But -- really -- trying to find music via P2P has its own set of inconveniences.
In short, throwing ones' self on the cross and claiming that music piracy is the only logical solution requires a tremendous amount of refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions. People who come up with these lame excuses for absolving themself of the moral issues behind piracy should grow a spine and/or some balls, fly the Jolly Roger proudly, and acknowledge that they'd rather keep the money rather than give it to a copyright holder. If spending the buck on iTunes or having to deal with a little DRM is such a back-breaking inconvenience, how do these people otherwise function in society?
"What P2P advocates need to do -- and I've said this many times -- is create a self-policed P2P network where the sharing of files that users DO NOT have the right to redistribute is strictly prohibited."
Yes, but who would use it? Companies like Sharman exist because of piracy. If, suddenly, all the pirated content were gone from Kazaa tomorrow, 99% of the customer base would also disappear, and the millions of dollars in ad revenue that they make per year would also go away.
As you stated, for the content that's typically used as an example of "legitimate P2P" material, a web site or an FTP site usually does the job just fine.
I feel your pain. Have you checked out the iTunes Music Store? It's pretty popular, and they have a much wider selection than the typical record store. Plus, you can preview music.
They do not allow you to download music in an MP3 format for convenient dumping into your Kazaa directory, but life is full of compromises. The attitude of many slashdotters is that the evil copyright holders are making it so that good, honest people are simply forced to pirate music, but it's not the case. If folks want to pirate, that's fine, but it's their choice. The fact that a small percentage of CDs have DRM, or that a CD might get scratched (as might a car or a DVD or a bike or most any other physical object), or that iTunes isn't quite convenient enough, do not make it acceptable to break the law.
"Perheaps you would care to explain it in more detail to the 90% of the planet's population, livng in places where dog-eat-dog capitalizm is the religion de jeur but it is curiously coupled with unspeakable misery and poverty of the "common man", freedom is unheard of and outright slavery common. What is your solution? More capitalism? More US-based pan-national megacorporations owning more of everything? Less governent restrictions on "investment"?"
Well, now that you put it that way, Movable Type must be crushed.
"Of course many of the music downloaders could be argued to have a legitimate fair use right"
You're correct; many music pirates argue "fair use." Those of us who have a basic understanding of fair use stand by and laugh at them.
You won't win this war against copyright holders with ignorance as a weapon in your arsenal. Google on "fair use music" if you'd like to educate yourself. Here's an EFF guide to understanding fair use rights to get you started.
Real-world MPG that's lower than the EPA estimate is a feature of all cars. This is where the phrase "your mileage may vary" -- comes from -- those car ads which are legally required to disclaim the EPA estimate. A common variant nowadays in car ads is "your mileage may vary, and will probably be less."
A quick Google on "your mileage may vary" is all it takes to show that this is a pervasive catch phrase in modern colloquial English. I'm not sure why everybody is so surprised when a car's mileage actually varies.
You are correct: when the contracts are up, they will be renegotiated. The prices may go up, or they may go down (as CD prices have gone down in the past five years). It all depends on the economy and the market. Apple is no less impervious to market forces than anybody else.
"Support independent music stores! They don't price their stock so high as the big chains."
The big chains like Wal-Mart and Best Buy are putting the independent and specialty retailers like Tower out of business by offering CDs at loss-leading prices. They can do this because, unlike the indies and specialty stores, they have a big building full of high margin products to make back the money. If you want to save money and your conscience allows it, you should buy your music at Wal-Mart, not your corner independent store.
When the specialty retailers complained to the record companies about this, the record companies responded by helping to fund the specialty retailers' ads in exchange for not advertising prices below a certain point. Wal-Mart and Best Buy complained to the government about this, the record companies were told to stop, and Tower subsequently filed for bankrupcty. Slashdot readers rejoiced.
If low music prices are the holy grail, then Wal-Mart is the hero here. That's a really unpleasant prospect, but there it is.
"Note to slashdot readers: Read the article. Notice the sources. Apply skepticism before righteous indignation."
Slashdot readers are free to ignore this when the "news" involves Microsoft or the RIAA. You did hear that unnamed source that stated that RIAA members drown kittens in their spare time, didn't you?
Books are also the same way. If you buy a copy of, say, The Da Vinci Code, you do not get the rights to republish or copy it, but at the same time, you don't get the option of turning it in for a newer or different edition. I'm surprised that more Slashdotters aren't aware of this.
Software is similar. The physical media is typically covered by a warranty. When you buy a copy of Windows XP, you do not own the rights to the Windows XP operating system; rather, a license to use it. Per the Windows XP EULA, the media is warranted against physical defects for 90 days.
Again, a pretty well-known fact about software which I'm surprised isn't more well known by Slashdotters.
Either way, I'm not sure of the point of calling out the MPAA/RIAA for something that's been practiced by book and software publishers for longer than most of us have been alive.
Not sure where you're getting your facts, but what you've relayed is not correct.
The funds do not go to the CRIA. They go to the CPCC, the Canadian Private Copying Collective. The CPCC is a non-profit organization, and most importantly, the CPCC is not the CRIA.
The record companies are among the recipients of the money that the CPCC hands out. As in the US, they get a small portion (15%), with the majority going directly to composers and publishers (66%) and performers (18%). In the case of the composers and performers, it is not given to the CRIA to redistribute to them, as you state. It is given directly to the composers and performers. The CRIA sees none of that money.
Additionally, neither the term "RIAA" or "Recording Industry Association of America" was mentioned in the press release.
This Rolling Stone article also neglects to mention the term "RIAA" but does cover some of the amounts owed:
"For some, the payout amounts to a drop in the bucket. The Dave Matthews Band is owed just over $14,000 (its 1996 album, Crash, for instance earned $4,000 that wasn't properly paid), while the $10,700 that Bowie was owed was just for 1997's Earthling. And for other artists, the payout comes too late, as deceased artists including Jim Croce, Waylon Jennings, Dizzy Gillespie and Frank Sinatra were all owed sums. But the estates of deceased musicians received some of the larger payouts, including that of songwriter Tommy Edward, which is due almost $230,000."
...and has this quote from Spitzer:
"It's not like there was a grand conspiracy to cheat them out of these big sums of money," he said. "It was just a failure to do what should have been done. That's why we have this settlement."
Spitzer also pointed out something that's forgotten by many Slashdotters:
"[Some] artists struggle," Spitzer said at a press conference announcing the deal in New York City today. "They depend on the stream of royalties."
Many Slashdotters presently justify their use of Kazaa to get their music because -- as we know from MTV Cribs -- artists have plenty of money. Spitzer is absolutely correct that many artists live royalty payment to royalty payment. A songwriter cannot pay the rent with a praise of a 14-year-old who loves the album he downloaded with Kazaa, and a songwriter doesn't make money on all those concerts and t-shirt sales that don't happen because the record didn't sell enough in the first place. Luckily for Kazaa users, there's a new justification: it's okay for me to deprive the songwriter from their royalties, because the record company does it, too!
There are other articles on the web which cover this settlement, but none that I could find mention the RIAA, either -- only the Slashdot writeup. This is because the RIAA was not a party to the settlement.
Occam's Razor would indicate that with many people's livelihoods at stake, the online music retailers have done a substantial amount of research into the pricing of music -- at least, more than the average Slashdotter. Anecdotal stories aside, it appears that $0.99 is the current point on the supply/demand curve that generates satisfactory volume and profitability. Pricing theory is an incredibly detailed art and science, and you can be sure that companies of this size are spending the bucks to do the math -- regardless of whether you agree with their strategy.
The tremendous production and promotion cost for music is not "bullshit." A typical indie release must sell 100K copies before it breaks even. For a commercial release, it's a million copies. If developing and running the iTunes Music Store had costs of "near zero," why not launch one yourself out of your bedroom? Apple sold 70 million tracks last year -- why not get in that action if it's as easy as you state?
You can typically take what Andrew Orlowski writes with a grain of salt, or at least apply an appropriate filter. He is not an unbiased journalist.
I don't know if he used the word "badger" or you, but that's hugely overstating it. Some record companies were discussing changing the pricing, but discussing pricing strategy is a major part of what all companies do -- even "good" companies like Apple and Red Hat.
Huh? There's no spying necessary or involved. Use BitTorrent or a number of other sharing applications and your IP address is out there for anybody to see. It's integral to how these sorts of programs work. There are some which do their best to mask IPs, and it's your choice whether you want to use them.
MGM found people trading in stuff it has the rights to, made note of the IPs, filenames, and times, and forwarded that to Comcast. Comcast sent the letters. Comcast did no "spying."
"If they can hassle people over downloading illegal files surely they could spend their time better and track all the people who have accessed child pornography."
Comcast and all other responsible providers take child pornography very seriously. ISPs are required, by law -- and rightfully so -- to report suspected child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The NCMEC has a pretty good system set up for ISPs to report suspected kiddie porn. I've gone through the process myself. They are very efficient. You say "naked under-age frog," and they jump.
I don't think what I've written should come as a surprise to anybody, so I'm wondering why so many posters assume that Comcast does nothing about child pornography simply because they are also complying with the DMCA. While it is true that stories about child pornography do not regularly make news on Slashdot, it is not logical to assume that the issue does not exist.
"When laws are injust,immoral and wrong,there are no laws.When laws are merely a device for the powerful to control the masses,there are no laws.When justice becomes the criminal,everyman becomes his own cop with just,moral and right written as law in his heart."
Sheesh. This is downloading movies so you can avoid paying for them. This is not the Montgomery freedom march.
It would be great if more people took this moral righteousness and applied it to social causes that make a difference, rather than to make themselves feel better about being pirates.
"Heh, most of the time movies are "traded" around is when the developers GIVE OUT screeners to people, and THAT is uploaded and passed around. So in turns, it's actually their own fault."
You are correct. Sometimes, promotional copies of films are distributed. The same goes for software and books, as well.
This does not nullify copyright law or remove the copyright protection on the work. It does not absolve you of responsibility and make it "their fault" that you are pirating their work. It does not make it any more acceptable to pirate the work. If you download a copyrighted film using BitTorrent, the ethics and legality of it are the same regardless of whether the copy came from a ripped promotional copy, from a camcorder in a theatre, or via a Netflix rental.
Pirate all you want, but at least take responsibility for your actions.
"Piracy is selling the games/movies/music that you download. Selling. Not just downloading. So sick of seeing 'piracy' everywhere, as if it actually applies to what is being discussed."
Your comments are very astute if we assume that most people are similar to Slashdot readers. Apple has done a tremendous job of getting iTunes / iPod awareness into the mainstream -- there's a higher non-geek ratio than many people understand. Most iTMS users don't read Slashdot or other tech blogging sites, nor visit Sourceforge regularly. Most iTMS users don't have more than five PCs, or need to burn more than eight copies of a CD, or have a huge desire to dump their collection of iTunes-purchased tracks into their Kazaa share directory.
It just may be so that among your circle of friends, awareness and use of the iTunes crackers approaches 100% -- no debating that. However, among my circle of friends who use iTunes, awareness is practically zero, and when I've mentioned it to them, their responses have been more along the lines of "how retarded," rather than "ooh, just what I've been looking for." Internet or no, there's a whole different strata of users beyond the Slashdot crowd.
You raise a good point but I think you're being a bit harsh on Apple's DRM restrictions, particularly with the understanding that Slashdot users != typical users. Apple's DRM allows sharing on three (or is it five now?) PCs. The vast majority of their customers likely do not personally own more than three PCs upon which they want to play music. Likewise, the ability to burn no more than seven (as I believe the new number is) copies of a playlist before you have to re-shuffle them -- again, the vast majority of customers don't have more than seven cars or other locations that need their own CD.
The only feature of their DRM which is likely to be an inconvenience to the typical user is the inability to convert directly to MP3 without an intermediate burn/rip. But, I certainly understand why this is the case. Apple -- like the businesses that you and I work for or even run -- are in business to make money. If making money on the back end by selling iPods is what allows them to sell songs at a buck a track, then that's fine with me -- if I want to put music on my Zen and it's too big of an inconvenience for me to burn/rip, then I'll get my tracks from an online store that offers WMAs. There are plenty of choices for consumers out there; using a cracking tool and violating license agreements is not the only way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Furthermore your implicit connection between people who wish to exercise their rights as customers to receive the highest quality product for their dollar is simply anti-american and probably communistic to boot."
Downloading music via Kazaa in lieu of buying it is not exercising my rights as a consumer.
Like (I'm guessing) most people here, if a CD has DRM, I don't buy it. I'll download it from iTunes instead.
CD DRM, which prevents one from backing up a CD or (in my case) playing in some car CD changers, is incredibly retarded -- no doubt about that. Yet -- and this is the point I've been trying to make -- this does not "force" people to turn to piracy and absolve the pirate of moral issues. Music is not a God-given right; if the CD you want isn't available in a non-DRM version and it's not available on one of the legal services, then the simplest path is to not buy it. But, if you choose to pirate it, be a man and don't try to lay the blame on somebody else. You, and only you, are responsible for your actions.
Now, if you have a moment, can you please explain how being an advocate for copyright holders is Anti-American or even communist? If anything, it's way over on the capitalistic side of the scale -- I believe that if you create something, and if somebody copies it without your permission, you have every right to get pissed off and every right to use every legal mean to go after them. This applies whether you're a songwriter living from royalty check to royalty check, or if you're Microsoft.
"e, here's the part that you music-industry shills can't seem to get right."
Watch it. Not all geeks follow the same moral course that you do.
"It's already easy as pie to get non-DRM encumbered music for free. It's already easy to rip songs and stick them in a Kazaa directory. Mp3's are out there, and there not going away. So iTunes really isn't protecting anything by wrapping their songs up in DRM. It only serves as a way to prevent their own customers from legally accessing music they've purchased. That's not a "compromise," that's a meaningless obstacle course."
Apple's DRM is somewhat like a lock on a car, or the security device on a piece of clothing. There are few auto security systems that can stop somebody who really wants your car, and serious shoplifters can pop that device in the blink of an eye. Likewise, there's no DRM that can't be circumvented, and there's no software copy protection that can't be cracked.
So why, you wonder, do people even bother?
The key to getting this is the understanding that not everybody is as smart as Slashdotters -- just as not every would-be car thief is a pro, and not every shoplifter does it for a living. iTunes, in particular, has done a great job of getting out to the mainstream. A protection mechanism (read: DRM, copy protection, or a car lock) that's good enough to stop 80% of the cases is good enough. In the case of an auto security system, if you put one in your car that causes the potential thief to pick another target, then it's done its job, even though it's not 100% effective. If that relatively easy-to-circumvent security device on the pair of pants in the store prevents the allowance-challenged 14-year-old from going for it, it's done its job. Likewise, if Apple's rather weak DRM is enough to thwart the casual, non-computer expert, then it's certainly a lot better than nothing -- in the eyes of the copyright holder, at least!
"If iTunes sold mp3s, the only possible outcome would be more people actually buying mp3s instead of getting them illegally."
I wish that were true. If everybody were honorable, Kazaa wouldn't have a business model.
"I do not consider it an overly liberal interpertation of this to say that if I own a piece of music medium A, then I am entitled to make a copy of it by downloading it from a third party."
You and I both know that the majority of P2P traffic is not space-shifting or format-shifting. It is people acquiring music that they didn't already own. Additionally, typically when you download something with a P2P client, it goes into your share directory for others to download. Whether or not you own the music already, you are not allowed to let others download it.
This is why the Ninth Circuit Court rejected the original Napster's "space shifting" argument. Click here for an excellent summary of the Napster fair use arguments -- every music pirate who thinks they understand fair use should read it.
The point is this: if you have a physical object, it may get damaged. A CD may get scratched. A car might hit something with enough force to make it unusable. This is a fact of life. If the risk of a scratched CD is a problem, make a backup, or get your music off of iTunes, Napster or any one of the legal download services. Likewise, auto insurance will help protect you if you damage your car.
Sure, backing up a CD or installing iTunes or signing up for car insurance can be a pain. But -- really -- trying to find music via P2P has its own set of inconveniences.
In short, throwing ones' self on the cross and claiming that music piracy is the only logical solution requires a tremendous amount of refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions. People who come up with these lame excuses for absolving themself of the moral issues behind piracy should grow a spine and/or some balls, fly the Jolly Roger proudly, and acknowledge that they'd rather keep the money rather than give it to a copyright holder. If spending the buck on iTunes or having to deal with a little DRM is such a back-breaking inconvenience, how do these people otherwise function in society?
"What P2P advocates need to do -- and I've said this many times -- is create a self-policed P2P network where the sharing of files that users DO NOT have the right to redistribute is strictly prohibited."
Yes, but who would use it? Companies like Sharman exist because of piracy. If, suddenly, all the pirated content were gone from Kazaa tomorrow, 99% of the customer base would also disappear, and the millions of dollars in ad revenue that they make per year would also go away.
As you stated, for the content that's typically used as an example of "legitimate P2P" material, a web site or an FTP site usually does the job just fine.
I feel your pain. Have you checked out the iTunes Music Store? It's pretty popular, and they have a much wider selection than the typical record store. Plus, you can preview music.
They do not allow you to download music in an MP3 format for convenient dumping into your Kazaa directory, but life is full of compromises. The attitude of many slashdotters is that the evil copyright holders are making it so that good, honest people are simply forced to pirate music, but it's not the case. If folks want to pirate, that's fine, but it's their choice. The fact that a small percentage of CDs have DRM, or that a CD might get scratched (as might a car or a DVD or a bike or most any other physical object), or that iTunes isn't quite convenient enough, do not make it acceptable to break the law.
"Perheaps you would care to explain it in more detail to the 90% of the planet's population, livng in places where dog-eat-dog capitalizm is the religion de jeur but it is curiously coupled with unspeakable misery and poverty of the "common man", freedom is unheard of and outright slavery common. What is your solution? More capitalism? More US-based pan-national megacorporations owning more of everything? Less governent restrictions on "investment"?"
Well, now that you put it that way, Movable Type must be crushed.
"Of course many of the music downloaders could be argued to have a legitimate fair use right"
You're correct; many music pirates argue "fair use." Those of us who have a basic understanding of fair use stand by and laugh at them.
You won't win this war against copyright holders with ignorance as a weapon in your arsenal. Google on "fair use music" if you'd like to educate yourself. Here's an EFF guide to understanding fair use rights to get you started.
Real-world MPG that's lower than the EPA estimate is a feature of all cars. This is where the phrase "your mileage may vary" -- comes from -- those car ads which are legally required to disclaim the EPA estimate. A common variant nowadays in car ads is "your mileage may vary, and will probably be less."
A quick Google on "your mileage may vary" is all it takes to show that this is a pervasive catch phrase in modern colloquial English. I'm not sure why everybody is so surprised when a car's mileage actually varies.
You are correct: when the contracts are up, they will be renegotiated. The prices may go up, or they may go down (as CD prices have gone down in the past five years). It all depends on the economy and the market. Apple is no less impervious to market forces than anybody else.
"Support independent music stores! They don't price their stock so high as the big chains."
The big chains like Wal-Mart and Best Buy are putting the independent and specialty retailers like Tower out of business by offering CDs at loss-leading prices. They can do this because, unlike the indies and specialty stores, they have a big building full of high margin products to make back the money. If you want to save money and your conscience allows it, you should buy your music at Wal-Mart, not your corner independent store.
When the specialty retailers complained to the record companies about this, the record companies responded by helping to fund the specialty retailers' ads in exchange for not advertising prices below a certain point. Wal-Mart and Best Buy complained to the government about this, the record companies were told to stop, and Tower subsequently filed for bankrupcty. Slashdot readers rejoiced.
If low music prices are the holy grail, then Wal-Mart is the hero here. That's a really unpleasant prospect, but there it is.
"Note to slashdot readers: Read the article. Notice the sources. Apply skepticism before righteous indignation."
Slashdot readers are free to ignore this when the "news" involves Microsoft or the RIAA. You did hear that unnamed source that stated that RIAA members drown kittens in their spare time, didn't you?
"The near-immortality of CDs, sometimes used as an excuse by record companies as an argument for their high cost"
I've never heard a record company state that a CD's near-immortality is a reason for its cost. Has anybody else? Can somebody provide a citation?
Books are also the same way. If you buy a copy of, say, The Da Vinci Code, you do not get the rights to republish or copy it, but at the same time, you don't get the option of turning it in for a newer or different edition. I'm surprised that more Slashdotters aren't aware of this.
Software is similar. The physical media is typically covered by a warranty. When you buy a copy of Windows XP, you do not own the rights to the Windows XP operating system; rather, a license to use it. Per the Windows XP EULA, the media is warranted against physical defects for 90 days.
Again, a pretty well-known fact about software which I'm surprised isn't more well known by Slashdotters.
Either way, I'm not sure of the point of calling out the MPAA/RIAA for something that's been practiced by book and software publishers for longer than most of us have been alive.
Not sure where you're getting your facts, but what you've relayed is not correct.
The funds do not go to the CRIA. They go to the CPCC, the Canadian Private Copying Collective. The CPCC is a non-profit organization, and most importantly, the CPCC is not the CRIA.
The record companies are among the recipients of the money that the CPCC hands out. As in the US, they get a small portion (15%), with the majority going directly to composers and publishers (66%) and performers (18%). In the case of the composers and performers, it is not given to the CRIA to redistribute to them, as you state. It is given directly to the composers and performers. The CRIA sees none of that money.
Additionally, neither the term "RIAA" or "Recording Industry Association of America" was mentioned in the press release.
This Rolling Stone article also neglects to mention the term "RIAA" but does cover some of the amounts owed:
"For some, the payout amounts to a drop in the bucket. The Dave Matthews Band is owed just over $14,000 (its 1996 album, Crash, for instance earned $4,000 that wasn't properly paid), while the $10,700 that Bowie was owed was just for 1997's Earthling. And for other artists, the payout comes too late, as deceased artists including Jim Croce, Waylon Jennings, Dizzy Gillespie and Frank Sinatra were all owed sums. But the estates of deceased musicians received some of the larger payouts, including that of songwriter Tommy Edward, which is due almost $230,000."
...and has this quote from Spitzer:
"It's not like there was a grand conspiracy to cheat them out of these big sums of money," he said. "It was just a failure to do what should have been done. That's why we have this settlement."
Spitzer also pointed out something that's forgotten by many Slashdotters:
"[Some] artists struggle," Spitzer said at a press conference announcing the deal in New York City today. "They depend on the stream of royalties."
Many Slashdotters presently justify their use of Kazaa to get their music because -- as we know from MTV Cribs -- artists have plenty of money. Spitzer is absolutely correct that many artists live royalty payment to royalty payment. A songwriter cannot pay the rent with a praise of a 14-year-old who loves the album he downloaded with Kazaa, and a songwriter doesn't make money on all those concerts and t-shirt sales that don't happen because the record didn't sell enough in the first place. Luckily for Kazaa users, there's a new justification: it's okay for me to deprive the songwriter from their royalties, because the record company does it, too!
For what it's worth, here's another royalty dispute in which Bob Donnelly was involved.
There are other articles on the web which cover this settlement, but none that I could find mention the RIAA, either -- only the Slashdot writeup. This is because the RIAA was not a party to the settlement.
Occam's Razor would indicate that with many people's livelihoods at stake, the online music retailers have done a substantial amount of research into the pricing of music -- at least, more than the average Slashdotter. Anecdotal stories aside, it appears that $0.99 is the current point on the supply/demand curve that generates satisfactory volume and profitability. Pricing theory is an incredibly detailed art and science, and you can be sure that companies of this size are spending the bucks to do the math -- regardless of whether you agree with their strategy.
The tremendous production and promotion cost for music is not "bullshit." A typical indie release must sell 100K copies before it breaks even. For a commercial release, it's a million copies. If developing and running the iTunes Music Store had costs of "near zero," why not launch one yourself out of your bedroom? Apple sold 70 million tracks last year -- why not get in that action if it's as easy as you state?
You can typically take what Andrew Orlowski writes with a grain of salt, or at least apply an appropriate filter. He is not an unbiased journalist.
I don't know if he used the word "badger" or you, but that's hugely overstating it. Some record companies were discussing changing the pricing, but discussing pricing strategy is a major part of what all companies do -- even "good" companies like Apple and Red Hat.
Huh? There's no spying necessary or involved. Use BitTorrent or a number of other sharing applications and your IP address is out there for anybody to see. It's integral to how these sorts of programs work. There are some which do their best to mask IPs, and it's your choice whether you want to use them.
MGM found people trading in stuff it has the rights to, made note of the IPs, filenames, and times, and forwarded that to Comcast. Comcast sent the letters. Comcast did no "spying."
"If they can hassle people over downloading illegal files surely they could spend their time better and track all the people who have accessed child pornography."
Comcast and all other responsible providers take child pornography very seriously. ISPs are required, by law -- and rightfully so -- to report suspected child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The NCMEC has a pretty good system set up for ISPs to report suspected kiddie porn. I've gone through the process myself. They are very efficient. You say "naked under-age frog," and they jump.
I don't think what I've written should come as a surprise to anybody, so I'm wondering why so many posters assume that Comcast does nothing about child pornography simply because they are also complying with the DMCA. While it is true that stories about child pornography do not regularly make news on Slashdot, it is not logical to assume that the issue does not exist.
"When laws are injust,immoral and wrong,there are no laws.When laws are merely a device for the powerful to control the masses,there are no laws.When justice becomes the criminal,everyman becomes his own cop with just,moral and right written as law in his heart."
Sheesh. This is downloading movies so you can avoid paying for them. This is not the Montgomery freedom march.
It would be great if more people took this moral righteousness and applied it to social causes that make a difference, rather than to make themselves feel better about being pirates.
"Heh, most of the time movies are "traded" around is when the developers GIVE OUT screeners to people, and THAT is uploaded and passed around. So in turns, it's actually their own fault."
You are correct. Sometimes, promotional copies of films are distributed. The same goes for software and books, as well.
This does not nullify copyright law or remove the copyright protection on the work. It does not absolve you of responsibility and make it "their fault" that you are pirating their work. It does not make it any more acceptable to pirate the work. If you download a copyrighted film using BitTorrent, the ethics and legality of it are the same regardless of whether the copy came from a ripped promotional copy, from a camcorder in a theatre, or via a Netflix rental.
Pirate all you want, but at least take responsibility for your actions.
"Piracy is selling the games/movies/music that you download. Selling. Not just downloading. So sick of seeing 'piracy' everywhere, as if it actually applies to what is being discussed."
Hope this helps.
Your comments are very astute if we assume that most people are similar to Slashdot readers. Apple has done a tremendous job of getting iTunes / iPod awareness into the mainstream -- there's a higher non-geek ratio than many people understand. Most iTMS users don't read Slashdot or other tech blogging sites, nor visit Sourceforge regularly. Most iTMS users don't have more than five PCs, or need to burn more than eight copies of a CD, or have a huge desire to dump their collection of iTunes-purchased tracks into their Kazaa share directory.
It just may be so that among your circle of friends, awareness and use of the iTunes crackers approaches 100% -- no debating that. However, among my circle of friends who use iTunes, awareness is practically zero, and when I've mentioned it to them, their responses have been more along the lines of "how retarded," rather than "ooh, just what I've been looking for." Internet or no, there's a whole different strata of users beyond the Slashdot crowd.
You raise a good point but I think you're being a bit harsh on Apple's DRM restrictions, particularly with the understanding that Slashdot users != typical users. Apple's DRM allows sharing on three (or is it five now?) PCs. The vast majority of their customers likely do not personally own more than three PCs upon which they want to play music. Likewise, the ability to burn no more than seven (as I believe the new number is) copies of a playlist before you have to re-shuffle them -- again, the vast majority of customers don't have more than seven cars or other locations that need their own CD.
The only feature of their DRM which is likely to be an inconvenience to the typical user is the inability to convert directly to MP3 without an intermediate burn/rip. But, I certainly understand why this is the case. Apple -- like the businesses that you and I work for or even run -- are in business to make money. If making money on the back end by selling iPods is what allows them to sell songs at a buck a track, then that's fine with me -- if I want to put music on my Zen and it's too big of an inconvenience for me to burn/rip, then I'll get my tracks from an online store that offers WMAs. There are plenty of choices for consumers out there; using a cracking tool and violating license agreements is not the only way.