...and all those DVD-XCopy users are making legitimate backups of only DVDs they own. Because, you know, scratched DVDs are such a rampant problem that spending the money on the burner, the blank media and the copying software is simply protecting one's investment.
"I share music with wild abandon, and think the lawsuits are BS, but you're basing this on one NON peer reviewed study that, if you read the PDF file linked from yesterday's story, makes some rather dubious assumptions."
...and there have been dozens of studies and analysts' reports which have had unique takes on the situation. It is yet one more study, but watch as it becomes Holy Writ for many Slashdotters, along with:
"copyright violation is a civil offense, not a criminal one" (I think this one is finally dying)
"More people pirate MP3s in the US than voted for George Bush"
"Radio stations must pay the record company to play music, and little or none of this goes to the artist"
"The blank audio CD-R tariff goes to the RIAA"
On Slashdot as with everywhere else, if you repeat something three times, it becomes a fact.
You're correct, which is why copyrights aren't granted in perpetuity. "Limited" is one of those absolute terms, like "unique" or "pregnant."
lifetime plus 70 years is not "virtually perpetual." It's a lifetime plus seventy years. That is the limit: a lifetime plus seventy years. The word "limited" does not become meaningless for certain values of limited. Stars such as the sort our planet orbits are limited to a lifetime of about a dozen billion years at most. The Pepsi iTunes promotion is limited to a million winners. A 401(k) contribution is limited to about $11K. All of these numbers are larger than the number of years in a contract, and they have not caused the meaning of the word "limited" to be weakened.
"When compact discs first appeared, they were much more expensive than vinyl LPs because there were only a couple of factories in the world that could manufacture them. The equipment to make CDs was very expensive, and the factories' production was very limited, so the cost was justified. But years later, although the cost of pressing a "glass master" compact disc has dropped to a few cents, the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all."
This is entirely false. First, you completely ignore the effect of inflation. Those CDs that you paid $18.99 for in 1988 are the equivalent of $29 today. Yet, the average price of a new release has dropped to $13.42 according to NPD Musicwatch. CD prices have dropped by more than half and you state "the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all." I'm not sure if you don't understand the effects of inflation, or you're deliberately being misleading (naturally, I'm hoping the former) but for your article to be effective, you really should fix that.
Additionally, you imply that the pressing cost of a CD is the most important factor affecting the final cost. This is incorrect. Remember, in the case of typical CDs, at least 80% or more ends up going toward somebody's salary, whether they work for the record store, the distributor, or the record company. Most CDs don't even break even, and the recording industry as a whole operates on a net margin of less than 30% -- far less than many of the other industries we deal with each day.
Lastly, you state:
"I know that in the US at least, there are more people sharing files on peer-to-peer networks than voted for George Bush in 2000."
How do you know this? What is your source? I remember a while back Kazaa released some number on usership, but (famously) they counted only the total number of created accounts, and not active users. This means that if somebody had downloaded Kazaa twice and used two user names a few years back, that's two "users." This is bad statistics, but a lot of Slashdotters have gobbled it up. Do you have a more scientific source for your statement?
In short, you have a lot of great stuff on your page, but these huge errors stand to make you look uninformed at best, or outright dishonest at worst. I think most people here on the same thing -- artists simply have too many rights and we must put them in their place -- but this isn't the way to go about it.
"The real pirates (selling illegal copies) are also making money, but that's not who the RIAA/MPAA is chasing."
The RIAA has always been chasing the big guys of the pirating world -- the ones who run the duplicating houses and sell their wares in Times Square -- and they still do. However, many people incorrectly assume that their recent suits against file sharers come at the exclusion of all other activities. This is probably because we don't read about those sorts of things on Slashdot. However, it was pretty trivial to find these stories on the RIAA web site:
There are more cases which aren't listed on the RIAA web site because it's law enforcement who are handling the job, with little or no help from the RIAA. Anybody who is interested can find plenty by googling on "criminal copyright infringement indictment."
"I thought when you listen on the radio only the song writer is getting paid by the station, not the performing artist."
Largely correct.
"So P2P is as likely to benefit the artist as playing on the air."
The "P2P sharing is just like the radio" argument doesn't work because downloading MP3s provides many benefits that radio does not. If MP3 downloaded truly provided no benefit above radio, it would not exist. It wouldn't need to -- we'd all just be listening to the radio!
Some of the benefits:
You get a high-quality recording -- just like buying a CD.
You have the priveledge of listening a particular song whenever you want, rather than waiting for it to come on the radio -- again, this is very similar to the benefit you get by buying a CD.
You can hear tracks that simply don't get radio airplay at all -- again, this is another benefit that downloading MP3's shares with buying a CD.
You get the original recording, not a "radio mix" or one which is edited for language. And, you also get this benefit by buying a CD.
In short, if you make a chart with a list of benefits down the left and three columns: "radio", "downloading MP3s" and "buying CDs," you'll find that the latter two share a lot of check marks that aren't in the "radio" column. Radio isn't a great replacement for buying a CD, but downloading an MP3 for free certainly is.
"Record companies are compensated for songs that are played on the radio, tv, etc. Just because the record company passes very little of that on to the artist is no justification for file sharing."
For what it's worth, in the United States, it's the songwriters and composers who are paid via radio airplay, not the record companies. Radio stations obtain licenses from ASCAP and BMI, non-profit performing rights societies that are run by and for artists, musicians and composers -- not the record companies.
"Copyright is good when it is in the right hands: those of a work's creator(s). Unfortunately, many artists have been/are being forced to enter the music market through the "loving" hands of the RIAA member companies, where they lose important rights ("voluntarily," of course)."
Typically, when you sign a recording contract, you have the rights to the words and music, and the record company has the rights to the particular recording of that music. A track on the CD is their recording of your work, so rights are shared, in a way. For example, the record company can't have their latest boy band record a cover version of your song without your permission, and you can't distribute the recording on your own without their permission.
"A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is."
I agree with you 100%, and that's how it presently works. I think a lot of people get lost on the idea that a recording's creation process doesn't end with the writing or even the performing, but with the recording, mixing and engineering. Artists typically sign deals with record labels because record labels possess the resources that they don't: cash, access to the distribution channel, and the talent of various engineers, artists and marketers that can get the record sold. In turn, the record companies get exclusive distribution rights on the recordings to offset the massive costs of the endeavor. Record companies, like a company that you or I might work for, or even own, are not philanthropic or non-profit organizations. If they don't recoup their expenses, they shut their doors.
The way to keep the rights to everything is to do everything yourself. Set up your own studio, or come up with the cash to rent time at a studio. Find an engineer that won't ask for a copyright on the recording. Shop your recordings directly to the download services like iTunes, or find a recording company like Magnatunes or CDBaby that does not ask for exclusive distribution rights (as they are not funding your recording and not sinking the kind of marketing money that a traditional record company would). Start a web site or pay somebody to run one for you, put some tracks online, and let viral marketing take care of the rest. Design your own label art or pay a designer to do it, then shop around for a CD duplicator, and then get on the phone with the distributors to get your CD placed at retail. It is hard, sweaty, backbreaking and (above all) expensive work, but it can be done. And you will learn that, as with so many other aspects of life, the cliche you cannot have your cake and eat it too applies to the profession of being a musician.
Of course, there will always be musicians who will prefer to go the label route if they have the chance. Many musicians don't have the resources, skills and/or the desire to be businesspeople -- they'd really rather just play their music and let the engineering/art/sales/marketing geeks go to work. This is a perfectly acceptable choice.
"The artists would get paid the same regardless of copyright lasting 15 years or 100."
I am not sure if I know what you mean. If I write a song that turns out to be one of those timeless gems that is still loved decades from now, I will be grateful for the money it can provide for me and my family fifteen years out and beyond. Even if I get five bucks in royalty payments in year sixteen, that's still five bucks I would not have had.
"All copyright revenues past 15-20 years is just free money for big publishers."
And songwriters and composers. Copyright law protects all copyright holders.
"They're accusing P2P "companies" of trying to get a monopoly on music distribution?"
Not sure where you got the "monopoly" part. They are accused of ransoming the entertainment industries into accepting their netorks as a distribution model, not the only one.
"Secondly... the fact that they use "companies" shows once again that they don't get it. Computer networks don't have to be sponsored by companies!"
You are correct that a network does not need to be sponsored by a company, but the fact is that some of the big P2P networks are run by some pretty big companies. Read the original remarks again and you'll probably see that the implicit target is Sharman Networks and their ilk. Kazaa is making money hand-over-fist in advertising revenue. If, magically, all the pirated material were gone from Kazaa tomorrow, they wouldn't have a business model.
"the whole setup basically a fig leaf so that the industry can *feel* protected while raking in the bucks."
More to the point, DRM is like a "club" for your car's steering wheel, or copy protection on PC software. It won't stop the people who are really determined to pirate music or software, or steal your car, but it stops the casual folks. If it can reduce much of the piracy, but not all of it, it's still worthwhile. The music industry's lawsuits have the same aim: if they can scare the masses away from piracy, they're better off even though the Slashdot crowd is simply moving to transfer mediums that are off the RIAA's radar or otherwise untouchable.
As an aside, I think Apple's DRM is fine. I can burn extra CDs for my friends and move tracks from PC to PC. It would not let me simply copy the tracks to my Kazaa share directory, which is fine, as that would be illegal anyway. The "artists have too many rights" crowd who see any sort of DRM as an affront to everything that is good and true and right in the world should check themselves.
I'm aware that/. is not a Borg collective consiousness. That's why I'm careful to use phrases like "according to many Slashdotters."
My point was probably a bit too opaque. It was not that any given Slashdotter is a hypocrite, but that those who are sick and tired of CDs being marked up to $16.99 or more should welcome Wal-mart's effect on the music sales channel. Wal-Mart successfully got the government to punish the record labels for price fixing, and now they are driving down the price of online music. Wal-Mart is a good guy.
Frankly, anybody who complains about CDs selling for $17 should just shop a little more carefully, even if that means going to Wal-Mart or Best Buy (which has pricing similar to Wal-Mart but isn't so much into that censorship angle). The difference between $12 and $17 is typically not due to the Evil Record Company as much as it is due to the Evil Mom-And-Pop Indie Store.
Just throwing out some (not necessarily realistic!) numbers here:
Say the Wal-Marts of the world sell new CDs at $11.99.
Say the Tower Records of the world, which have the benefit volume but which don't have a store full of underwear and rifles to make back low margins, sell those same new releases at $13.99.
Now say the mom-and-pop stores of which you speak, which do not have the benefit of high volumes or a larger retail footprint, must sell those same new releases for $15.99.
Now compare this with the all-too-common Slashdot lament that a CD which cost negative $0.73 to produce, manufacture, distribute and promote is selling for -- oh my fucking God -- $15.99.
Since marking up prices is, according to many Slashdotters, the most evilist thing that can be done, it seems like Wal-Mart should be the good guy here, and the mom-and-pop indie store is the bad guy.
"At what point does the lowering of the price of downloadable music approaching the practice of dumping? Similar to what the USA constantly accuses foreign memory chip or timber companies of doing? Is wal-mart using its monolopy on low end merchandise to sibsidize its entry into the music business to the detriment of competition?"
When Wal-Mart started doing this with CDs in the stores, the record companies came to the aid of specialty retailers like Tower Records by giving them co-op advertising money in exchange for doing MAPs. Wal-Mart complained to the government, the government told the record companies to stop doing it, and Slashdotters cheered. Tower Records, which provides a higher selection of uncensored music but simply cannot compete with Wal-Mart on pricing, subsequently filed for bankrupcty.
Seems to me that Wal-Mart's predatory pricing should make them heros to the typical Slashdotter.
I don't understand -- do you think they're "suing their customers," or not?
If you're that shining beacon among Slashdot users who realizes that "suing their customers" is a meaningless phrase as it relates to the RIAA suits, then the word you are probably looking for is "ironic," not "sarcastic."
"Many of them don't know or want to focus their time on getting loans, finding engineers, booking studio time, finding graphic artists, booking tours, manufacturing cds, marketing their release, etc., etc. While kudos go out to the "Our Band Could Be Your Life" exceptions that actually manage to pull off a complete DIY business, there is still a need for what we do."
Hear, hear. Very well put. I hope a lot of people read this and remember it.
Too many Slashdotters see record companies as valueless leeches that will have no place as soon as this whole Internet thing takes off. This may be because your average coder or IT manager simply doesn't understand that many musicians don't want or don't have the skills to be businesspeople. They really would rather do what they're good at -- play music -- and let others help with the rest. Sadly, this makes them liable to be classified by many Slashdotters as talentless sell-outs who deserve to have their stuff pirated -- or (depending on whom you talk to) victims.
"I wonder how RIAA will take notice (rest assured they will take notice)? Will they view it was a threat and try to buy out these independent artists to close this down, ignore it, or see that it actually works?"
In case it wasn't clear, the RIAA is a trade group that represents record labels, particularly the majors. However, the RIAA does not have a charter of putting indie labels out of business.
The indie labels have their own trade group, the AFIM. This press release should clarify how the AFIM and the RIAA see each other.
The record industry may be many things, but it's not a monopoly.
"They make it almost impossible for an artist to audit independently how many records they've sold, but inevitably when artists do audit (usually in a very limited area), they discover they are being paid even less than the lousy terms in their contracts."
Inevetably? You mean this happens in 100% of the cases? Can you give some examples?
"So stop calling it stealing or copyright infringement."
They're just words. If you're going to infringe somebody's copyright, why not be honest with yourself and let the Jolly Roger fly freely? If you're convinced that you're doing the right thing by infringing somebody's copyright, then the words can't hurt you. It's not like somebody's taking money out of your pocket. At the end of the day, the worst thing is that you'll be called a name, but you'll have the last laugh because you've saved the $14.
"So don't give me a sob story about the artists."
How about applying the Golden Rule in this case? As I'm sure that none of us would want somebody using our copyrighted material in an unauthorized manner (such as violating the GPL), why not extend that same courtesy to artists? Right or wrong, if they let you copy their work, then by all means do it. But if they would prefer that you purchase it, why not respect their decision rather than deciding that you know what's best for them? We don't need free music, but artists do need to pay the rent.
For what it's worth, they've been suing the "whales," the people who put thousands of tracks in their share directories. This is "suing your customer" in the manner that arresting a shoplifter is "arresting your customer" -- after all, the shoplifter might also buy stuff from the store, and perhaps the shoplifting is using a "try before you buy" method, and perhaps by stealing from your store, they'll recommend the stolen product to their friends, who might come to your store and buy it. Ultimately, lots of people are potential customers, but sometimes when somebody is breaking the law, you've just got to kick some ass.
Next, have you been on Kazaa lately? It's just not the same. Sure, the brainy Slashdot-types who have no interest in ceasing piracy have moved on to other networks that are off the radar (for now), but there are a lot of less sophisticated users out there who've been sufficiently scared by the campaign to begin buying again.
"When compact discs first appeared, they were much more expensive than vinyl LPs because there were only a couple of factories in the world that could manufacture them. The equipment to make CDs was very expensive, and the factories' production was very limited, so the cost was justified. But years later, although the cost of pressing a "glass master" compact disc has dropped to a few cents, the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all."
To avoid getting an unexpected reaction from this, you should consider acknowledging the following points:
Your statement ignores inflation. The first CDs were around $18.99 when they arrived in the late 80s. That would be about $29 in today's dollars. In reality, the average price of a new CD has dropped to $13.42, according to NPD MusicWatch. Your statement that the retail price of CDs "hasn't dropped at all" is false -- it has dropped in both absolute and constant dollars.
You mention only the pressing costs of a CD; this gives the impression that you believe this to be a significant factor in the price of CDs. You overlook the fact that most (or all, in the case of an unprofitable CD) of the final price paid ends up going to somebody's salary, whether it's the session musician, the engineer, or the person who works at the record stores. Salaries have risen significantly since the 1980s.
You state that the cost to press a CD has dropped to "a few cents," implying that it's less than ten cents. This estimate is off several-fold. "Less than fifty cents" is more accurate. As an aside, people should not confuse the price to press a CD-R vs. pressing a CD. At any rate, the pressing cost is one of the least significant factors in the price of a CD.
Contrary to your article's claims, the price of CDs has been cut in half since their introduction, when you properly use constant dollars. This is despite the fact that the cost of about every aspect of CD production, marketing and distribution has gone up. Compare this to other forms of entertainment, like movie tickets, whose price has remained about the same in constant dollars since the 1980s.
Your article makes many good points, but a mistake like this may make people think that you are trying to fool readers who aren't privy to a basic course in economics -- and there are a lot of them out there.
For what it's worth, the average net margin on a music CD is south of 30%. The recording industry is speculative; the costs of producing the bulk of the CDs are covered by that rare CD that recoups its costs. For a major label, a million examples must typically be sold to break even; indie labels, whose overhead is much lower, have to sell only about 100,000 pieces, but that's more difficult to do when you don't have the marketing budget of the majors.
Of course, CD distribution via the traditional system is inefficient as all hell; 21st century solutions like iTunes totally kick traditional distribution's ass. However, the issue of the inefficient CD distribution system has nothing to do with copyright reform.
"They aren't working because they've led to legal nonsenses such as 12 year olds being sued for breaking laws that they either don't understand or that are ignored by the great majority of people."
That singular 12-year-old was named on the paperwork because her mother chose to put her name on the bill when she signed up for broadband. This has nothing to do with copyright law. If you saw fit to sue a local business, and the owner had placed their child's name on the business license, then you might be in the same situation. Can we give this silliness a rest?
At any rate, I don't see how you got from A to B. If, say, you're a car mechanic and you have to take a customer to court for failing to pay a bill -- and this sort of thing happens much more frequently than the RIAA suits -- does it imply that the law that requires customers pay for goods isn't working?
"They aren't working because large companies can buy representation in the the legislature and fund inefficient and wasteful law suits to attempt to scare the majority into laws that most consider unjust."
This is hardly limited to the world of IP, copyright or trademark. Copyright reform would have no effect on this. Big companies will continue to buy, or attempt to buy, our elected officials.
"They aren't working because right now a company could make a major breakthrough and prevent anyone else from using that breakthrough."
Companies are generally in business to make money. If there is not sufficient financial incentive to pursue something, there's a good chance that it won't be pursued. Whether we like it or not, the race to deliver cures for AIDs, cancer, and other ills is largely being led by companies who expect a financial reward to offset the thousands of person-years and millions of dollars they are investing into research.
"I believe they aren't working for anyone but companies who can afford to put their weight behind them."
I've seen innumerable cases of an individual successfully asserting their copyright. Copyright law protects us all.
"All of the world's greatest works, and greatest genuises never worked for money or incentive - that helped, sure, but it was not the goal."
Not true in the least. Innumerable artistic greats of the past millennium, inclusing most classical composers that most of us can name -- chased money just like we do today. There's simply no way to credibly generalize otherwise. Brahms died a rich man. Vivaldi died in poverty. This has no effect on their relative worth as musicians. Kanye West and John Mayer are also rich men. Perhaps their work will still be remembered a hundred years ago, and perhaps not, but we cannot claim that they have any less love of the art than Brahms or Vivaldi did.
Sadly, greed isn't a new invention. While there will always be people who create for creation's sake -- today's Torvalds, yesterday's Tesla -- there have been dozens of Beatles, Porters, Dickens, Twains, Da Vincis, Shakespeares, Chopins and the like who were motivated by money and got quite rich doing what they did.
"Look at the trash quality of music today - its only because the morons who are making it are interested only in making money and fame, and not music in itself."
Your father said the same thing, as did his father, and so on. People in the 1870's were pining for a return to the superior music of the 1850's. Nostalgia is one of those universal forces. Statments like "today's music is crappy," no matter what decade or century they're uttered in, are ultimately meaningless.
"Personally, I think copyright length should be determined by ROI, not an across-the-board fixed length of time. Once the cost to create a work has been recovered, that work should enter the public domain - its creator has received their "reasonable restitution"."
If I understand you, you think that being an artist, writer, musician or a similar profession should be a zero sum game -- they should be allowed only to break even, and leave the money-making to the rest of us. Is this correct?
For those slashdotters that agree with this sentiment, I have a follow-up question: when you hear of a singer, artist or novelist who has more money than you -- does this make you angry or jealous? Do you see copyright form as a way of "getting even?" Do you think that, say, IT managers or coders are better people than those who choose to make their money with their voice or their skills at writing prose?
I feel that one way of measuring a society is by how it treats its artists. This apparently widespread sentiment that aritsts should be second-class citizens doesn't bode well.
"Don't forget that, according to this online info the average human lifespan in 1790 was about 37 years. So a 14 year copyright with a right to renew for 14 years is 75% of the life span of a typical person at the time."
We are getting off-topic here, but "average" and "typical" have different meanings in this context. When somebody quotes that the average lifespan of a person in some forgotten century was under 40, they are referring to the arithmetic mean, and not stating that the typical person dropped dead before 40.
George Washington died in 1799 at 67 years of age. Thomas Jefferson lived to be 83. Were they extraordinarily long-lived in an era when the average lifespan was 37 years? No.
The reason why the average -- again, we mean arithmetic mean -- lifespan was so low back then was because people did not survive childhood diseases the way they did now. Your odds of dropping dead before you were 18 were vastly higher than they are now, but once you survived your teens, the odds were good that you'd live to well beyond 37.
Slashdot Mirror
...and all those DVD-XCopy users are making legitimate backups of only DVDs they own. Because, you know, scratched DVDs are such a rampant problem that spending the money on the burner, the blank media and the copying software is simply protecting one's investment.
"I share music with wild abandon, and think the lawsuits are BS, but you're basing this on one NON peer reviewed study that, if you read the PDF file linked from yesterday's story, makes some rather dubious assumptions."
...and there have been dozens of studies and analysts' reports which have had unique takes on the situation. It is yet one more study, but watch as it becomes Holy Writ for many Slashdotters, along with:
On Slashdot as with everywhere else, if you repeat something three times, it becomes a fact.
You're correct, which is why copyrights aren't granted in perpetuity. "Limited" is one of those absolute terms, like "unique" or "pregnant."
lifetime plus 70 years is not "virtually perpetual." It's a lifetime plus seventy years. That is the limit: a lifetime plus seventy years. The word "limited" does not become meaningless for certain values of limited. Stars such as the sort our planet orbits are limited to a lifetime of about a dozen billion years at most. The Pepsi iTunes promotion is limited to a million winners. A 401(k) contribution is limited to about $11K. All of these numbers are larger than the number of years in a contract, and they have not caused the meaning of the word "limited" to be weakened.
Michael, on your page, you write:
"When compact discs first appeared, they were much more expensive than vinyl LPs because there were only a couple of factories in the world that could manufacture them. The equipment to make CDs was very expensive, and the factories' production was very limited, so the cost was justified. But years later, although the cost of pressing a "glass master" compact disc has dropped to a few cents, the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all."
This is entirely false. First, you completely ignore the effect of inflation. Those CDs that you paid $18.99 for in 1988 are the equivalent of $29 today. Yet, the average price of a new release has dropped to $13.42 according to NPD Musicwatch. CD prices have dropped by more than half and you state "the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all." I'm not sure if you don't understand the effects of inflation, or you're deliberately being misleading (naturally, I'm hoping the former) but for your article to be effective, you really should fix that.
Additionally, you imply that the pressing cost of a CD is the most important factor affecting the final cost. This is incorrect. Remember, in the case of typical CDs, at least 80% or more ends up going toward somebody's salary, whether they work for the record store, the distributor, or the record company. Most CDs don't even break even, and the recording industry as a whole operates on a net margin of less than 30% -- far less than many of the other industries we deal with each day.
Lastly, you state:
"I know that in the US at least, there are more people sharing files on peer-to-peer networks than voted for George Bush in 2000."
How do you know this? What is your source? I remember a while back Kazaa released some number on usership, but (famously) they counted only the total number of created accounts, and not active users. This means that if somebody had downloaded Kazaa twice and used two user names a few years back, that's two "users." This is bad statistics, but a lot of Slashdotters have gobbled it up. Do you have a more scientific source for your statement?
In short, you have a lot of great stuff on your page, but these huge errors stand to make you look uninformed at best, or outright dishonest at worst. I think most people here on the same thing -- artists simply have too many rights and we must put them in their place -- but this isn't the way to go about it.
"The real pirates (selling illegal copies) are also making money, but that's not who the RIAA/MPAA is chasing."
The RIAA has always been chasing the big guys of the pirating world -- the ones who run the duplicating houses and sell their wares in Times Square -- and they still do. However, many people incorrectly assume that their recent suits against file sharers come at the exclusion of all other activities. This is probably because we don't read about those sorts of things on Slashdot. However, it was pretty trivial to find these stories on the RIAA web site:
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/021804.asp
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/122303.asp
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/121603.asp
There are more cases which aren't listed on the RIAA web site because it's law enforcement who are handling the job, with little or no help from the RIAA. Anybody who is interested can find plenty by googling on "criminal copyright infringement indictment."
"I thought when you listen on the radio only the song writer is getting paid by the station, not the performing artist."
Largely correct.
"So P2P is as likely to benefit the artist as playing on the air."
The "P2P sharing is just like the radio" argument doesn't work because downloading MP3s provides many benefits that radio does not. If MP3 downloaded truly provided no benefit above radio, it would not exist. It wouldn't need to -- we'd all just be listening to the radio!
Some of the benefits:
In short, if you make a chart with a list of benefits down the left and three columns: "radio", "downloading MP3s" and "buying CDs," you'll find that the latter two share a lot of check marks that aren't in the "radio" column. Radio isn't a great replacement for buying a CD, but downloading an MP3 for free certainly is.
"Record companies are compensated for songs that are played on the radio, tv, etc. Just because the record company passes very little of that on to the artist is no justification for file sharing."
For what it's worth, in the United States, it's the songwriters and composers who are paid via radio airplay, not the record companies. Radio stations obtain licenses from ASCAP and BMI, non-profit performing rights societies that are run by and for artists, musicians and composers -- not the record companies.
ASCAP has a pretty good radio licensing FAQ.
However, I agree with you that the fact that radio licensing exists is no excuse for piracy.
"Copyright is good when it is in the right hands: those of a work's creator(s). Unfortunately, many artists have been/are being forced to enter the music market through the "loving" hands of the RIAA member companies, where they lose important rights ("voluntarily," of course)."
Typically, when you sign a recording contract, you have the rights to the words and music, and the record company has the rights to the particular recording of that music. A track on the CD is their recording of your work, so rights are shared, in a way. For example, the record company can't have their latest boy band record a cover version of your song without your permission, and you can't distribute the recording on your own without their permission.
"A work's creator, and only the creator, should have full control of the work's copyright for a strictly limited time, after which the work should enter the public domain. This is all just my opinion, and is an awful lot of shoulding, but there it is."
I agree with you 100%, and that's how it presently works. I think a lot of people get lost on the idea that a recording's creation process doesn't end with the writing or even the performing, but with the recording, mixing and engineering. Artists typically sign deals with record labels because record labels possess the resources that they don't: cash, access to the distribution channel, and the talent of various engineers, artists and marketers that can get the record sold. In turn, the record companies get exclusive distribution rights on the recordings to offset the massive costs of the endeavor. Record companies, like a company that you or I might work for, or even own, are not philanthropic or non-profit organizations. If they don't recoup their expenses, they shut their doors.
The way to keep the rights to everything is to do everything yourself. Set up your own studio, or come up with the cash to rent time at a studio. Find an engineer that won't ask for a copyright on the recording. Shop your recordings directly to the download services like iTunes, or find a recording company like Magnatunes or CDBaby that does not ask for exclusive distribution rights (as they are not funding your recording and not sinking the kind of marketing money that a traditional record company would). Start a web site or pay somebody to run one for you, put some tracks online, and let viral marketing take care of the rest. Design your own label art or pay a designer to do it, then shop around for a CD duplicator, and then get on the phone with the distributors to get your CD placed at retail. It is hard, sweaty, backbreaking and (above all) expensive work, but it can be done. And you will learn that, as with so many other aspects of life, the cliche you cannot have your cake and eat it too applies to the profession of being a musician.
Of course, there will always be musicians who will prefer to go the label route if they have the chance. Many musicians don't have the resources, skills and/or the desire to be businesspeople -- they'd really rather just play their music and let the engineering/art/sales/marketing geeks go to work. This is a perfectly acceptable choice.
"The artists would get paid the same regardless of copyright lasting 15 years or 100."
I am not sure if I know what you mean. If I write a song that turns out to be one of those timeless gems that is still loved decades from now, I will be grateful for the money it can provide for me and my family fifteen years out and beyond. Even if I get five bucks in royalty payments in year sixteen, that's still five bucks I would not have had.
"All copyright revenues past 15-20 years is just free money for big publishers."
And songwriters and composers. Copyright law protects all copyright holders.
"They're accusing P2P "companies" of trying to get a monopoly on music distribution?"
Not sure where you got the "monopoly" part. They are accused of ransoming the entertainment industries into accepting their netorks as a distribution model, not the only one.
"Secondly... the fact that they use "companies" shows once again that they don't get it. Computer networks don't have to be sponsored by companies!"
You are correct that a network does not need to be sponsored by a company, but the fact is that some of the big P2P networks are run by some pretty big companies. Read the original remarks again and you'll probably see that the implicit target is Sharman Networks and their ilk. Kazaa is making money hand-over-fist in advertising revenue. If, magically, all the pirated material were gone from Kazaa tomorrow, they wouldn't have a business model.
"the whole setup basically a fig leaf so that the industry can *feel* protected while raking in the bucks."
More to the point, DRM is like a "club" for your car's steering wheel, or copy protection on PC software. It won't stop the people who are really determined to pirate music or software, or steal your car, but it stops the casual folks. If it can reduce much of the piracy, but not all of it, it's still worthwhile. The music industry's lawsuits have the same aim: if they can scare the masses away from piracy, they're better off even though the Slashdot crowd is simply moving to transfer mediums that are off the RIAA's radar or otherwise untouchable.
As an aside, I think Apple's DRM is fine. I can burn extra CDs for my friends and move tracks from PC to PC. It would not let me simply copy the tracks to my Kazaa share directory, which is fine, as that would be illegal anyway. The "artists have too many rights" crowd who see any sort of DRM as an affront to everything that is good and true and right in the world should check themselves.
I'm aware that /. is not a Borg collective consiousness. That's why I'm careful to use phrases like "according to many Slashdotters."
My point was probably a bit too opaque. It was not that any given Slashdotter is a hypocrite, but that those who are sick and tired of CDs being marked up to $16.99 or more should welcome Wal-mart's effect on the music sales channel. Wal-Mart successfully got the government to punish the record labels for price fixing, and now they are driving down the price of online music. Wal-Mart is a good guy.
Frankly, anybody who complains about CDs selling for $17 should just shop a little more carefully, even if that means going to Wal-Mart or Best Buy (which has pricing similar to Wal-Mart but isn't so much into that censorship angle). The difference between $12 and $17 is typically not due to the Evil Record Company as much as it is due to the Evil Mom-And-Pop Indie Store.
You make a very good point.
Just throwing out some (not necessarily realistic!) numbers here:
Say the Wal-Marts of the world sell new CDs at $11.99.
Say the Tower Records of the world, which have the benefit volume but which don't have a store full of underwear and rifles to make back low margins, sell those same new releases at $13.99.
Now say the mom-and-pop stores of which you speak, which do not have the benefit of high volumes or a larger retail footprint, must sell those same new releases for $15.99.
Now compare this with the all-too-common Slashdot lament that a CD which cost negative $0.73 to produce, manufacture, distribute and promote is selling for -- oh my fucking God -- $15.99.
Since marking up prices is, according to many Slashdotters, the most evilist thing that can be done, it seems like Wal-Mart should be the good guy here, and the mom-and-pop indie store is the bad guy.
"At what point does the lowering of the price of downloadable music approaching the practice of dumping? Similar to what the USA constantly accuses foreign memory chip or timber companies of doing? Is wal-mart using its monolopy on low end merchandise to sibsidize its entry into the music business to the detriment of competition?"
When Wal-Mart started doing this with CDs in the stores, the record companies came to the aid of specialty retailers like Tower Records by giving them co-op advertising money in exchange for doing MAPs. Wal-Mart complained to the government, the government told the record companies to stop doing it, and Slashdotters cheered. Tower Records, which provides a higher selection of uncensored music but simply cannot compete with Wal-Mart on pricing, subsequently filed for bankrupcty.
Seems to me that Wal-Mart's predatory pricing should make them heros to the typical Slashdotter.
I don't understand -- do you think they're "suing their customers," or not?
If you're that shining beacon among Slashdot users who realizes that "suing their customers" is a meaningless phrase as it relates to the RIAA suits, then the word you are probably looking for is "ironic," not "sarcastic."
HTH. HAND.
"Many of them don't know or want to focus their time on getting loans, finding engineers, booking studio time, finding graphic artists, booking tours, manufacturing cds, marketing their release, etc., etc. While kudos go out to the "Our Band Could Be Your Life" exceptions that actually manage to pull off a complete DIY business, there is still a need for what we do."
Hear, hear. Very well put. I hope a lot of people read this and remember it.
Too many Slashdotters see record companies as valueless leeches that will have no place as soon as this whole Internet thing takes off. This may be because your average coder or IT manager simply doesn't understand that many musicians don't want or don't have the skills to be businesspeople. They really would rather do what they're good at -- play music -- and let others help with the rest. Sadly, this makes them liable to be classified by many Slashdotters as talentless sell-outs who deserve to have their stuff pirated -- or (depending on whom you talk to) victims.
"I wonder how RIAA will take notice (rest assured they will take notice)? Will they view it was a threat and try to buy out these independent artists to close this down, ignore it, or see that it actually works?"
In case it wasn't clear, the RIAA is a trade group that represents record labels, particularly the majors. However, the RIAA does not have a charter of putting indie labels out of business.
The indie labels have their own trade group, the AFIM. This press release should clarify how the AFIM and the RIAA see each other.
"The record companies have a monopoly."
The record industry may be many things, but it's not a monopoly.
"They make it almost impossible for an artist to audit independently how many records they've sold, but inevitably when artists do audit (usually in a very limited area), they discover they are being paid even less than the lousy terms in their contracts."
Inevetably? You mean this happens in 100% of the cases? Can you give some examples?
By the way, there are independent auditing sources freely available, like NPD MusicWatch and Nielsen Soundscan.
"So stop calling it stealing or copyright infringement."
They're just words. If you're going to infringe somebody's copyright, why not be honest with yourself and let the Jolly Roger fly freely? If you're convinced that you're doing the right thing by infringing somebody's copyright, then the words can't hurt you. It's not like somebody's taking money out of your pocket. At the end of the day, the worst thing is that you'll be called a name, but you'll have the last laugh because you've saved the $14.
"So don't give me a sob story about the artists."
How about applying the Golden Rule in this case? As I'm sure that none of us would want somebody using our copyrighted material in an unauthorized manner (such as violating the GPL), why not extend that same courtesy to artists? Right or wrong, if they let you copy their work, then by all means do it. But if they would prefer that you purchase it, why not respect their decision rather than deciding that you know what's best for them? We don't need free music, but artists do need to pay the rent.
"Suing your customers increases CD sales."
For what it's worth, they've been suing the "whales," the people who put thousands of tracks in their share directories. This is "suing your customer" in the manner that arresting a shoplifter is "arresting your customer" -- after all, the shoplifter might also buy stuff from the store, and perhaps the shoplifting is using a "try before you buy" method, and perhaps by stealing from your store, they'll recommend the stolen product to their friends, who might come to your store and buy it. Ultimately, lots of people are potential customers, but sometimes when somebody is breaking the law, you've just got to kick some ass.
Next, have you been on Kazaa lately? It's just not the same. Sure, the brainy Slashdot-types who have no interest in ceasing piracy have moved on to other networks that are off the radar (for now), but there are a lot of less sophisticated users out there who've been sufficiently scared by the campaign to begin buying again.
Interesting page! On it, you wrote:
"When compact discs first appeared, they were much more expensive than vinyl LPs because there were only a couple of factories in the world that could manufacture them. The equipment to make CDs was very expensive, and the factories' production was very limited, so the cost was justified. But years later, although the cost of pressing a "glass master" compact disc has dropped to a few cents, the retail price of CDs has not dropped at all."
To avoid getting an unexpected reaction from this, you should consider acknowledging the following points:
Contrary to your article's claims, the price of CDs has been cut in half since their introduction, when you properly use constant dollars. This is despite the fact that the cost of about every aspect of CD production, marketing and distribution has gone up. Compare this to other forms of entertainment, like movie tickets, whose price has remained about the same in constant dollars since the 1980s.
Your article makes many good points, but a mistake like this may make people think that you are trying to fool readers who aren't privy to a basic course in economics -- and there are a lot of them out there.
For what it's worth, the average net margin on a music CD is south of 30%. The recording industry is speculative; the costs of producing the bulk of the CDs are covered by that rare CD that recoups its costs. For a major label, a million examples must typically be sold to break even; indie labels, whose overhead is much lower, have to sell only about 100,000 pieces, but that's more difficult to do when you don't have the marketing budget of the majors.
Of course, CD distribution via the traditional system is inefficient as all hell; 21st century solutions like iTunes totally kick traditional distribution's ass. However, the issue of the inefficient CD distribution system has nothing to do with copyright reform.
"They aren't working because they've led to legal nonsenses such as 12 year olds being sued for breaking laws that they either don't understand or that are ignored by the great majority of people."
That singular 12-year-old was named on the paperwork because her mother chose to put her name on the bill when she signed up for broadband. This has nothing to do with copyright law. If you saw fit to sue a local business, and the owner had placed their child's name on the business license, then you might be in the same situation. Can we give this silliness a rest?
At any rate, I don't see how you got from A to B. If, say, you're a car mechanic and you have to take a customer to court for failing to pay a bill -- and this sort of thing happens much more frequently than the RIAA suits -- does it imply that the law that requires customers pay for goods isn't working?
"They aren't working because large companies can buy representation in the the legislature and fund inefficient and wasteful law suits to attempt to scare the majority into laws that most consider unjust."
This is hardly limited to the world of IP, copyright or trademark. Copyright reform would have no effect on this. Big companies will continue to buy, or attempt to buy, our elected officials.
"They aren't working because right now a company could make a major breakthrough and prevent anyone else from using that breakthrough."
Companies are generally in business to make money. If there is not sufficient financial incentive to pursue something, there's a good chance that it won't be pursued. Whether we like it or not, the race to deliver cures for AIDs, cancer, and other ills is largely being led by companies who expect a financial reward to offset the thousands of person-years and millions of dollars they are investing into research.
"I believe they aren't working for anyone but companies who can afford to put their weight behind them."
I've seen innumerable cases of an individual successfully asserting their copyright. Copyright law protects us all.
"All of the world's greatest works, and greatest genuises never worked for money or incentive - that helped, sure, but it was not the goal."
Not true in the least. Innumerable artistic greats of the past millennium, inclusing most classical composers that most of us can name -- chased money just like we do today. There's simply no way to credibly generalize otherwise. Brahms died a rich man. Vivaldi died in poverty. This has no effect on their relative worth as musicians. Kanye West and John Mayer are also rich men. Perhaps their work will still be remembered a hundred years ago, and perhaps not, but we cannot claim that they have any less love of the art than Brahms or Vivaldi did.
Sadly, greed isn't a new invention. While there will always be people who create for creation's sake -- today's Torvalds, yesterday's Tesla -- there have been dozens of Beatles, Porters, Dickens, Twains, Da Vincis, Shakespeares, Chopins and the like who were motivated by money and got quite rich doing what they did.
"Look at the trash quality of music today - its only because the morons who are making it are interested only in making money and fame, and not music in itself."
Your father said the same thing, as did his father, and so on. People in the 1870's were pining for a return to the superior music of the 1850's. Nostalgia is one of those universal forces. Statments like "today's music is crappy," no matter what decade or century they're uttered in, are ultimately meaningless.
"Personally, I think copyright length should be determined by ROI, not an across-the-board fixed length of time. Once the cost to create a work has been recovered, that work should enter the public domain - its creator has received their "reasonable restitution"."
If I understand you, you think that being an artist, writer, musician or a similar profession should be a zero sum game -- they should be allowed only to break even, and leave the money-making to the rest of us. Is this correct?
For those slashdotters that agree with this sentiment, I have a follow-up question: when you hear of a singer, artist or novelist who has more money than you -- does this make you angry or jealous? Do you see copyright form as a way of "getting even?" Do you think that, say, IT managers or coders are better people than those who choose to make their money with their voice or their skills at writing prose?
I feel that one way of measuring a society is by how it treats its artists. This apparently widespread sentiment that aritsts should be second-class citizens doesn't bode well.
"Free market + Copyrights + Patents + Trade Secrets are what we have now and they clearly aren't working."
It may not be clear enough. How are they not working, and for whom are they not working?
Sorry if that's a dumb question.
"Don't forget that, according to this online info the average human lifespan in 1790 was about 37 years. So a 14 year copyright with a right to renew for 14 years is 75% of the life span of a typical person at the time."
We are getting off-topic here, but "average" and "typical" have different meanings in this context. When somebody quotes that the average lifespan of a person in some forgotten century was under 40, they are referring to the arithmetic mean, and not stating that the typical person dropped dead before 40.
George Washington died in 1799 at 67 years of age. Thomas Jefferson lived to be 83. Were they extraordinarily long-lived in an era when the average lifespan was 37 years? No.
The reason why the average -- again, we mean arithmetic mean -- lifespan was so low back then was because people did not survive childhood diseases the way they did now. Your odds of dropping dead before you were 18 were vastly higher than they are now, but once you survived your teens, the odds were good that you'd live to well beyond 37.