"I remember most Slashdot posts back when the RIAA was trying to get Napster shut down. They were to the effect, "Napster is just a tool, it can be used to share legitimite things too! Go after the actual offenders, not the tool!" Now the RIAA is going after the actual offenders."
A common response now is "Why is the RIAA going after the pirates? They should leave that to law enforcement!"
And when that happens, it will be yet another case of being careful what you wish for.
Additionally, two years ago we were seeing:
"The music industry is a dinosaur! They won't give up their antiquated business model of hard good distribution!"
Now, of course, the various record companies have released perhaps to a million tracks online. Online resellers of downloadable music (Napster, Apple, and so on) are generating millions upon millions of dollars in revenue through online music sales. And now a common complaint is, inscrutibly:
"The music industry is a dinosaur! They won't give up their antiquated business model of hard good distribution!"
I wonder what it will take. Perhaps an industry-wide adoption of the "sink tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of money into producing a CD, then give it away for free with no DRM" business model.
"If they were doing some drastic remodeling of their business model when they sue people, I would still be sympathetic. But now, they just sue, sue and sue and no actice action on how to repair it at the base, their own out-dated business model."
Not true any more... recently the record companies have started working with companies like Apple and Roxio to offer legal, legitimate download services. Some of these services (Apple in particular) have shown rather good results. The availability of legitimate online music is massively larger than it was just a couple of years ago. It took a long time to turn that ship around, but the recording industry is now embracing online distribution in a way that it never has in the past.
The lawsuits, of course, are designed to scare people from obtaining the music illegally, and moving to the legitimate download services.
The use of the "piracy" nomenclature in the world of intellectual property goes back a hundred years. Additionally, I find it sad that some people think that software piracy is piracy, but music piracy somehow is not. Intellectual property is intellectual property... and piracy is piracy. This is not a "some copyright holders are more equal than others" situation. Musicians deserve protection just as much as coders, poets and painters do.
"Apart from the question of who is actually financing this and what they hope to get from it, the idea is good."
In case this wasn't clear, Kazaa is paying for the ads. Because their software facilitates getting copyrighted music for free, many people are of the assumption that Kazaa is non-profit or volunteer-run. Not true at all... they are a for-profit corporation, just like 7-11, General Motors... or Sony Music. Their current profit model hinges almost solely on ad revenue. Those pop-ups and banner ads you see when you run Kazaa are what pay their bills.
What they hope to get from it is to stay in business. They want the record companies to use Kazaa as a medium to distribute paid content. The record companies are, so far, opting to go through companies like Apple, Roxio and MusicMatch, and shutting Kazaa out. This ad is an attempt to build a grass-roots movement to convince the record companies to do business with Kazaa.
"First, does Kazaa really make that much from selling adspace on their homepage?"
Advertising is their primary source of revenue. Not mainly on their home page, but within the application itself.
A business model based almost entirely on advertising revenue can be scary: if your traffic is down 20% this month vs. last month, your revenue is cut by 20%. Nielsen claims that Kazaa usage has dropped recently, so Kazaa's got to be feeling the heat.
"Secondly, isn't it better that artists, and the support staff they work with, aren't going to continue working for record labels which have a poor record in promoting lesser bands?"
I don't think you or I or anybody here can adequately answer that on behalf of such a large group of people. It depends on each person's financial situation. Many of these employees have families to feed and bills like rent to pay, and missing just one paycheck can hurt. While I've heard of people who've seen being laid off as some sort of release, most people I've known who've been laid off from their jobs have not been happy about it.
Likewise, most artists probably don't relish the idea of being dropped from their label, but there are probably exceptions. It's easier to make money with a recording contract than without a recording contract, which is why musicians strive so hard to get them.
"As far as I can see, the Internet is setting the stage for a cultural renaissance. Does anyone else think this is so?"
I think it's obvious that the 'net has caused a cultural renaissance. But it's not a cure-all for all of society's problems.
"First off, since they give Kazaa away, where is the money for the ad campaign coming from?"
Ad revenue, of course. Kazaa is a for-profit business. Like a web site, they provide a medium and then sell ad space on it. Kazaa usage is down, and this means ad revenue is down. They are (rightfully so, as any business should be) alarmed about this. One thing which may have them concerned is the relative success of the legitimate download services.
When this ad campaign was reported on news.com three days ago, the news.com article covered a point which the above glossed over: Kazaa has been going to the record companies for a while now, trying to work a deal with them. Kazaa wants to morph itself into a legitimate distribution network by partnering with the big record companies, or (as I believe they fear) they will be squeezed out by the iTMSes and Napsters of the world, lose that critical mass of users and -- this is the important part -- will not be able to get the ad revenue they have in the past. Said record companies have, so far, replied with something that rhymes with "duck shoe," and this ad campaign is an attempt to start a grass roots effort to get the record companies to change their minds.
So, Kazaa and a typical record company have a few things in common:
Seeing lost revenue
Concerned about their business model
Using public-awareness campaigns to get their side of the story across
Slowly trying to change their business model
Don't pay artists as well as slashdotters would like (ignore this one if you're a slashdotter who's in the "artists get paid TOO much" camp)
"Secondly, if the MPAA & RIAA are both doing so badly, where are all the broke movie and music superstars?"
It's not the superstars you have to worry about; it's the folks more like you and me, but who happen to work in the entertainment industry. Tower Records is in serious trouble and has reportedly asked Kazaa to buy them out. Record companies are hurting and consolidating -- the Sony-BMG merger could mean thousands of people laid off and dozens of artists dropped. But before anybody dances with glee over the artists being dropped... it won't be the Madonnas and Britneys that will be dropped. More likely it will be the more marginally profitable acts. Some of them may be hard working, just like you and me, and not superstars worthy of contempt because they have too much money. This is just a guess, though.
"Game writer seldom get royalties, unless they have a stake in the company. I would love to get a royalty on software I have written, man I could retire."
Ah, and thus the double standard. We all issue calls to arms about how horribly musicians are treated for getting a royalty that's perhaps only 10% of the wholesale cost of the CD -- or, at the very least, we use this as rationalization to use Kazaa to get our tunes without that nagging guilt. Yet there's no such outrage on behalf of software developers... not even as a means to pretend that software piracy is a similarly noble cause.
Thanks for your detailed reply. You certainly have more balls than the twit who marked my post as "troll."
Justin Moore's report doesn't really prove your point -- see his summary at the end, and notice the low number of other entertainment industries represented in his survey. I think that's another case of the Slashdot writeup overhyping and misinterpreting the source article.
Additionally, I find surveys that show that music pirates buy more CDs to be useless. If one is a file sharing enthusiast, there's the motivation to say that one buys more CDs, even if it's an anonymous survey, because it's hugely self-serving. One is liable to say whatever one thinks will help one's cause. Of course, it would be nice for everybody if it were true, as with the astronomical explosion in music piracy that's occurred over the past year, CD sales would be enjoying an unprecedented change in the good direction.
But several other links you provided were compelling, particularly the Business Week article. Thanks.
For what it's worth, I have nothing personal to rationalize either. Like you, I dislike blind reactionism, as you put it. A little knowledge goes a long way, and despite your uncalled-for "you're just wrong" statement, you are a shining star among typical Slashdotters.
"iTMS probably won't be profitable in the future, either, unless certain things change: 1) RIAA's cut of the iTMS proceeds decreases (from a reported 65%)"
Huh? The record company gets about 65 cents for each sale. That's a very different thing than "65% cut of proceeds."
That record company may or may not be a member of the RIAA. There are probably hundreds of record companies represented on iTMS, as well as "virtual" record companies like CDBaby that have nothing to do with the RIAA.
You're making it sound like the RIAA automatically gets a cut of profits -- not true in the least. Remember, the RIAA is a trade organization representing the recording industries. A record company may or may not be a member. Again, part of the $0.99 sale price per track goes to the record company. Not the RIAA.
"You seem to have forgotten about the brick-and-mortar Apple Stores (70+ stores, with more on the way)."
No, but I have an understanding of Walmart's retail presence vs. Apple's. Walmart has more than 70 stores in Germany. Worldwide, Wal-Mart has close to 5,000 stores of various types, the vast majority of which do far more business than a typical Apple-owned retail store. Last year Walmart had retail sales of a quarter of a trillion dollars. The marketing push that they can accomplish in their retail stores utterly dwarfs what Apple could do in their 70 boutique-style stores.
"Steve Jobs has very clearly stated that iTMS makes about squat for profit; it's just a pretty Trojan Horse to get people to buy iPods (and eventually Macs). Walmart doesn't have an MP3 player (that I'm aware) to push. Selling music to get people to buy MP3 players seems a bit more plausible than, say, selling music to get people to buy tires/clothing/cereal in Walmart stores."
There are a TON of variables which define whether an enterprise makes a profit. Apple has been sinking a metric buttload of promotion money into iTMS so they aren't profitable at this moment. We have no way of knowing if Walmart's promotional budget would be similar to Apples. Additionally, one thing Walmart has that Apple doesn't is a network of retail stores in which they can advertise for free.
The US is a republic, not a democracy. Mob rule can be good, or it can be bad; our governmental structure protects us from the bad while occasionally hindering the good.
When software pirates are taken to court on criminal charges they're often charged using the retail value of the software. For a DVD this would be about $20. The fact that you buy exclusively used DVDs at $7.00 a pop, or if you personally value the content at $5.00 probably wouldn't be relevant if you were nailed.
Also, as has been covered in this thread and elsewhere, the damage claims typically don't stop at the value of one copy of the software, song or DVD in question. If the RIAA, the MPAA, or -- God help you -- the feds think they can show reasonable evidence that more than one person downloaded what you're sharing, it will add up fast. One DVD with a retail value of $20, downloaded by 50 people, will get you over that $1,000.00 limit.
"I think the reason for decreaed CD sales is from the creation of NOW thats what i call music and other similar CD's. Why pay for 12 CD's when you can get the 1 or 2 songs you like on each CD for the price of one."
That's another constant, like 90% of music being crap, or "high" CD prices, which many mistake for a temporal variable responsible for the recent huge dropoff in CD sales. Compilation records, tapes and CDs have been around for a while (ask your parents to recall the old "K-Tel" TV spots). While the "Now..." series is obviously a success (what are there now, 28 of them?) it would have to sell a enormously insane number in order to be responsible for the huge downturn in the industry.
There's a popular statistic that people like to quote around here when pushing for copyright law reform (but which is forgotten when slashdotters gather to ignore the 500-lb. elephant in the room and come up with ways to blame everything but piracy for the sales crash): more people have used a file-sharing app than voted in the last presidential election. I think that has had a much larger effect on crumbling CD sales than the "Now..." series.
"The same reason there is so much debate on mp3's. Just because its in a "shared" folder doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't belong to you and doesn't necessarily mean its being shared."
Debate among./'ers, perhaps. But this is where personal responsibility comes into play: if you don't have permission to share copyrighted material -- even if you bought the CD yourself -- don't put it into a shared folder. Since it's illegal to share copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission, a little file management will potentially avoid a lot of legal liability.
"If I one of these DVD's is in my DVDROM drive at work and I share the DVDROM in my corporate network, then I'm guilty even if no one actually saw the movie including me."
I think this is an instance where personal responsibility comes in to play. If you have some copyrighted material that you don't have permission to distribute, it's your responsibility to take due care that you're not a conduit for piracy. The key part of your statment is "...and I share...". If you don't have permission to share something, the best way to avoid liability is to not share it.
"Online sharing, at worst, only represents the latter case if (and only if) the downloader would have paid for a copy had they not been able to get a free download, and that case is apparently quite rare."
I've met dozens of people who quite openly admit to downloading as an alternative to paying for a legal copy. Additionally, CD sales have been in freefall since the file sharing networks have taken off. File sharing apologists claim that it's due to the economy (perhaps partially true, but CD sales in particular have dropped at a higher rate than other forms of entertainment that aren't easily piratable) or because of all the bad music out there (which is a constant, not a variable, in the equation), and other easily disprovable arguments which are really just ignoring the 500-lb. elephant in the room: the music industry is suffering due to widespread piracy.
So, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your "apparently quite rare" statment. The evidence shows otherwise.
"It also doesn't take into account the actual increase in sales due to sharing (try before you buy), increased exposure to artists, and access to music that you could not otherwise buy or find in stores."
This is also a straw man for a couple of reasons: first, CD sales are hurting, so any "benefit" to the industry or artists is being swallowed up by the fact that as a whole, more and more people are choosing to get their music for free rather than buy it. Additionally, almost any illegal act, civil or criminal, has a "well, it COULD have a beneficial side effect" argument. It's useful for rationizing it to yourself if the goal is to feel better about what you're doing, but that's about it.
The RIAA got in trouble with that "Usher" file naming debacle, so they've started checking content more carefully. I'd expect the MPAA to exercise the same due diligence, wouldn't you?
However, trying that stunt you describe would certainly result in lots of pissed off fellow Kazaa users.
At any rate, maybe I can explain the original poster's point better. If I create something (a book, or some software, or a song) for which there is a total market of X people, and if this gets out on the P2P networks which facilitates N (where N is a subset of X) people to download it for free instead of paying me, I have lost a sale. My market size has shrunk. This is not a "victimless crime." Your statement that copyright infringement "deprives the copyright holder of nothing" is only accurate if 100% of those who download rather than buy would not have bought in the first place. Otherwise, the copyright holder has been deprived of a sale.
"That is a huge difference. Civil vs Criminal illegal, to be exact. By calling it theft, you are changing it from a civil offense to a criminal offense. There *IS* a difference between them. The law makes a distinction between them, why can't you?"
It's an extremely common perception among/. readers that copyright infringement is exclusively a civil offense. Nonetheless, in US law, there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement. Here are the details.
It can also be an eye-opener to Google on "criminal copyright infringement." You'll be rewarded with plenty of links to cases in the USA where parties were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement and have been sentenced to jail time.
At any rate, maybe I can explain the original poster's point better. If I create something (a book, or some software, or a song) for which there is a total market of X people, and if this gets out on the P2P networks which facilitates X - N (where 0
Yeah, didn't think so. The RIAA is going after people who download copyrighted material for which their members own the copyright. Except when mistakes happen (the "usher" file name brouhaha), they're not after people who trade music for which the copyright holder has given permission; they have no right to and no need to. Nor have they stated that this is wrong.
"Piracy" is in the dictionary as synonymous with copyright violation. You're tilting at windmills on that one at best, and if you're actually implying that software piracy is piracy but music piracy isn't, you're giving the impression that you believe copyright holders have a different value in society depending on whether they choose to write code or compose music.
"The RIAA, to protect a dying monopoly, has engaged in pure manipulation of facts and emotions."
Remember, the RIAA is a trade organization that represents members of the recording industry. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of record labels, so the industry has no more of a monopoly than the auto industry has a monopoly on making cars. Anybody with the means and the talent can start a record company. Whether your new record company presses hard CDs or distributes music online, and whether or not you choose to join the RIAA is up to you, either way, you're now a part of the recording industry.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that a copyright holder has a monopoly on how their work is distributed. If so, you are absolutely correct. This is what copyright means, in a nutshell. If you write a book or a poem or a play or a fugue or a command-line utility, you hold the copyright and only you get to decide how it is distributed. As it should be.
"Are you sure about that? I, being a socialist, will claim it has more to do with ideology than jealousy."
Sadly, I am. While you have the inarguable courage and the conviction of your beliefs, too many of the responses have that reek of resentment toward uppity artists who have made more than they deserve.
"You just contradicted yourself. Do you claim that certain jobs deserve low pay? Or do you not? You cannot say that you believe the "right" education and "right" choices will make you rich, and then claim that you are not making a statment on the class nature of society. Either you support classes or you oppose them!"
"Right" is contextual. The right thing is whatever makes you happy. For me, that's money -- and for those who point out that money doesn't buy happiness, it sure beats the hell out of being poor. And to be clear, by "right education" I certainly don't exclusively mean prep schools and Ivy League universities. I have no such thing, but I knew what I needed to learn and I worked hard at absorbing the right things. It's served me well.
Nonsense. The definition's been around since before you or I were born.
Back when I was young, Apple software pirates used the term with pride. I'm talking the Apple ][, not the Mac (ask your parents). They adopted names like "Jolly Roger" and, on the whole, warmly embraced the term.
"Unless you're getting MP3s with a cutlass and an eyepatch, it's not piracy."
If you're getting them against the wishes of the copyright holder, it's piracy. Here's the dictionary definition. That's the accepted term, whether it's software, music, or any other copyrighted material. Let's not fool ourselves. Pirating $1,000.00 worth of music is just as illegal as pirating $1,000.00 worth of software or any other copyrighted material. Musicians are not second-class citizens; this is no "some copyright holders are more equal than others" situation.
You make some good arguments but pretending that music piracy isn't really piracy won't help anybody's cause.
"The hookers-and-blow crowd might still prefer going with a major-label contract, but the labels no longer have their de facto monopoly on distribution."
Distribution of physical CDs to stores is just one part of the services that a record label offers an artist. The record label typically finances the production and and promotion, as well -- these things can be hugely costly. The labels recoup this investment by selling recordings.
"That's why the RIAA and others are desperately trying to portray all downloading as a criminal act."
I see this mentioned fairly often on slashdot, but I have yet to see a link to evidence that backs this up. Do you have a citation for this? I'd really be surprised, as iTMS is doing gangbuster business and the record companies must be thrilled that it's taking off. A sale is a sale.
"They're engaging in a campaign of psychology to create an unthinking aversion to non-label distribution"
Wow, that sounds pretty bad, if it's true! Do you have a citation for this, as well?
Slashdot Mirror
"I remember most Slashdot posts back when the RIAA was trying to get Napster shut down. They were to the effect, "Napster is just a tool, it can be used to share legitimite things too! Go after the actual offenders, not the tool!" Now the RIAA is going after the actual offenders."
A common response now is "Why is the RIAA going after the pirates? They should leave that to law enforcement!"
And when that happens, it will be yet another case of being careful what you wish for.
Additionally, two years ago we were seeing:
"The music industry is a dinosaur! They won't give up their antiquated business model of hard good distribution!"Now, of course, the various record companies have released perhaps to a million tracks online. Online resellers of downloadable music (Napster, Apple, and so on) are generating millions upon millions of dollars in revenue through online music sales. And now a common complaint is, inscrutibly:
"The music industry is a dinosaur! They won't give up their antiquated business model of hard good distribution!"I wonder what it will take. Perhaps an industry-wide adoption of the "sink tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of money into producing a CD, then give it away for free with no DRM" business model.
"If they were doing some drastic remodeling of their business model when they sue people, I would still be sympathetic. But now, they just sue, sue and sue and no actice action on how to repair it at the base, their own out-dated business model."
Not true any more... recently the record companies have started working with companies like Apple and Roxio to offer legal, legitimate download services. Some of these services (Apple in particular) have shown rather good results. The availability of legitimate online music is massively larger than it was just a couple of years ago. It took a long time to turn that ship around, but the recording industry is now embracing online distribution in a way that it never has in the past.
The lawsuits, of course, are designed to scare people from obtaining the music illegally, and moving to the legitimate download services.
The American Heritage definition of "pirate" has a similar entry.
The use of the "piracy" nomenclature in the world of intellectual property goes back a hundred years. Additionally, I find it sad that some people think that software piracy is piracy, but music piracy somehow is not. Intellectual property is intellectual property... and piracy is piracy. This is not a "some copyright holders are more equal than others" situation. Musicians deserve protection just as much as coders, poets and painters do.
"Apart from the question of who is actually financing this and what they hope to get from it, the idea is good."
In case this wasn't clear, Kazaa is paying for the ads. Because their software facilitates getting copyrighted music for free, many people are of the assumption that Kazaa is non-profit or volunteer-run. Not true at all... they are a for-profit corporation, just like 7-11, General Motors... or Sony Music. Their current profit model hinges almost solely on ad revenue. Those pop-ups and banner ads you see when you run Kazaa are what pay their bills.
What they hope to get from it is to stay in business. They want the record companies to use Kazaa as a medium to distribute paid content. The record companies are, so far, opting to go through companies like Apple, Roxio and MusicMatch, and shutting Kazaa out. This ad is an attempt to build a grass-roots movement to convince the record companies to do business with Kazaa.
"First, does Kazaa really make that much from selling adspace on their homepage?"
Advertising is their primary source of revenue. Not mainly on their home page, but within the application itself.
A business model based almost entirely on advertising revenue can be scary: if your traffic is down 20% this month vs. last month, your revenue is cut by 20%. Nielsen claims that Kazaa usage has dropped recently, so Kazaa's got to be feeling the heat.
"Secondly, isn't it better that artists, and the support staff they work with, aren't going to continue working for record labels which have a poor record in promoting lesser bands?"
I don't think you or I or anybody here can adequately answer that on behalf of such a large group of people. It depends on each person's financial situation. Many of these employees have families to feed and bills like rent to pay, and missing just one paycheck can hurt. While I've heard of people who've seen being laid off as some sort of release, most people I've known who've been laid off from their jobs have not been happy about it.
Likewise, most artists probably don't relish the idea of being dropped from their label, but there are probably exceptions. It's easier to make money with a recording contract than without a recording contract, which is why musicians strive so hard to get them.
"As far as I can see, the Internet is setting the stage for a cultural renaissance. Does anyone else think this is so?"
I think it's obvious that the 'net has caused a cultural renaissance. But it's not a cure-all for all of society's problems.
"First off, since they give Kazaa away, where is the money for the ad campaign coming from?"
Ad revenue, of course. Kazaa is a for-profit business. Like a web site, they provide a medium and then sell ad space on it. Kazaa usage is down, and this means ad revenue is down. They are (rightfully so, as any business should be) alarmed about this. One thing which may have them concerned is the relative success of the legitimate download services.
When this ad campaign was reported on news.com three days ago, the news.com article covered a point which the above glossed over: Kazaa has been going to the record companies for a while now, trying to work a deal with them. Kazaa wants to morph itself into a legitimate distribution network by partnering with the big record companies, or (as I believe they fear) they will be squeezed out by the iTMSes and Napsters of the world, lose that critical mass of users and -- this is the important part -- will not be able to get the ad revenue they have in the past. Said record companies have, so far, replied with something that rhymes with "duck shoe," and this ad campaign is an attempt to start a grass roots effort to get the record companies to change their minds.
So, Kazaa and a typical record company have a few things in common:
"Secondly, if the MPAA & RIAA are both doing so badly, where are all the broke movie and music superstars?"
It's not the superstars you have to worry about; it's the folks more like you and me, but who happen to work in the entertainment industry. Tower Records is in serious trouble and has reportedly asked Kazaa to buy them out. Record companies are hurting and consolidating -- the Sony-BMG merger could mean thousands of people laid off and dozens of artists dropped. But before anybody dances with glee over the artists being dropped... it won't be the Madonnas and Britneys that will be dropped. More likely it will be the more marginally profitable acts. Some of them may be hard working, just like you and me, and not superstars worthy of contempt because they have too much money. This is just a guess, though.
"Game writer seldom get royalties, unless they have a stake in the company. I would love to get a royalty on software I have written, man I could retire."
Ah, and thus the double standard. We all issue calls to arms about how horribly musicians are treated for getting a royalty that's perhaps only 10% of the wholesale cost of the CD -- or, at the very least, we use this as rationalization to use Kazaa to get our tunes without that nagging guilt. Yet there's no such outrage on behalf of software developers... not even as a means to pretend that software piracy is a similarly noble cause.
Thanks for your detailed reply. You certainly have more balls than the twit who marked my post as "troll."
Justin Moore's report doesn't really prove your point -- see his summary at the end, and notice the low number of other entertainment industries represented in his survey. I think that's another case of the Slashdot writeup overhyping and misinterpreting the source article.
Additionally, I find surveys that show that music pirates buy more CDs to be useless. If one is a file sharing enthusiast, there's the motivation to say that one buys more CDs, even if it's an anonymous survey, because it's hugely self-serving. One is liable to say whatever one thinks will help one's cause. Of course, it would be nice for everybody if it were true, as with the astronomical explosion in music piracy that's occurred over the past year, CD sales would be enjoying an unprecedented change in the good direction.
But several other links you provided were compelling, particularly the Business Week article. Thanks.
For what it's worth, I have nothing personal to rationalize either. Like you, I dislike blind reactionism, as you put it. A little knowledge goes a long way, and despite your uncalled-for "you're just wrong" statement, you are a shining star among typical Slashdotters.
I was just there last week and Bentonville isn't dry any more. The change apparently happened in the past few months.
"iTMS probably won't be profitable in the future, either, unless certain things change: 1) RIAA's cut of the iTMS proceeds decreases (from a reported 65%)"
Huh? The record company gets about 65 cents for each sale. That's a very different thing than "65% cut of proceeds."
That record company may or may not be a member of the RIAA. There are probably hundreds of record companies represented on iTMS, as well as "virtual" record companies like CDBaby that have nothing to do with the RIAA.
You're making it sound like the RIAA automatically gets a cut of profits -- not true in the least. Remember, the RIAA is a trade organization representing the recording industries. A record company may or may not be a member. Again, part of the $0.99 sale price per track goes to the record company. Not the RIAA.
"You seem to have forgotten about the brick-and-mortar Apple Stores (70+ stores, with more on the way)."
No, but I have an understanding of Walmart's retail presence vs. Apple's. Walmart has more than 70 stores in Germany. Worldwide, Wal-Mart has close to 5,000 stores of various types, the vast majority of which do far more business than a typical Apple-owned retail store. Last year Walmart had retail sales of a quarter of a trillion dollars. The marketing push that they can accomplish in their retail stores utterly dwarfs what Apple could do in their 70 boutique-style stores.
"Steve Jobs has very clearly stated that iTMS makes about squat for profit; it's just a pretty Trojan Horse to get people to buy iPods (and eventually Macs). Walmart doesn't have an MP3 player (that I'm aware) to push. Selling music to get people to buy MP3 players seems a bit more plausible than, say, selling music to get people to buy tires/clothing/cereal in Walmart stores."
There are a TON of variables which define whether an enterprise makes a profit. Apple has been sinking a metric buttload of promotion money into iTMS so they aren't profitable at this moment. We have no way of knowing if Walmart's promotional budget would be similar to Apples. Additionally, one thing Walmart has that Apple doesn't is a network of retail stores in which they can advertise for free.
The US is a republic, not a democracy. Mob rule can be good, or it can be bad; our governmental structure protects us from the bad while occasionally hindering the good.
When software pirates are taken to court on criminal charges they're often charged using the retail value of the software. For a DVD this would be about $20. The fact that you buy exclusively used DVDs at $7.00 a pop, or if you personally value the content at $5.00 probably wouldn't be relevant if you were nailed.
Also, as has been covered in this thread and elsewhere, the damage claims typically don't stop at the value of one copy of the software, song or DVD in question. If the RIAA, the MPAA, or -- God help you -- the feds think they can show reasonable evidence that more than one person downloaded what you're sharing, it will add up fast. One DVD with a retail value of $20, downloaded by 50 people, will get you over that $1,000.00 limit.
That's another constant, like 90% of music being crap, or "high" CD prices, which many mistake for a temporal variable responsible for the recent huge dropoff in CD sales. Compilation records, tapes and CDs have been around for a while (ask your parents to recall the old "K-Tel" TV spots). While the "Now..." series is obviously a success (what are there now, 28 of them?) it would have to sell a enormously insane number in order to be responsible for the huge downturn in the industry.
There's a popular statistic that people like to quote around here when pushing for copyright law reform (but which is forgotten when slashdotters gather to ignore the 500-lb. elephant in the room and come up with ways to blame everything but piracy for the sales crash): more people have used a file-sharing app than voted in the last presidential election. I think that has had a much larger effect on crumbling CD sales than the "Now..." series.
"The same reason there is so much debate on mp3's. Just because its in a "shared" folder doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't belong to you and doesn't necessarily mean its being shared."
Debate among ./'ers, perhaps. But this is where personal responsibility comes into play: if you don't have permission to share copyrighted material -- even if you bought the CD yourself -- don't put it into a shared folder. Since it's illegal to share copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission, a little file management will potentially avoid a lot of legal liability.
"If I one of these DVD's is in my DVDROM drive at work and I share the DVDROM in my corporate network, then I'm guilty even if no one actually saw the movie including me."
I think this is an instance where personal responsibility comes in to play. If you have some copyrighted material that you don't have permission to distribute, it's your responsibility to take due care that you're not a conduit for piracy. The key part of your statment is "...and I share...". If you don't have permission to share something, the best way to avoid liability is to not share it.
"Online sharing, at worst, only represents the latter case if (and only if) the downloader would have paid for a copy had they not been able to get a free download, and that case is apparently quite rare."
I've met dozens of people who quite openly admit to downloading as an alternative to paying for a legal copy. Additionally, CD sales have been in freefall since the file sharing networks have taken off. File sharing apologists claim that it's due to the economy (perhaps partially true, but CD sales in particular have dropped at a higher rate than other forms of entertainment that aren't easily piratable) or because of all the bad music out there (which is a constant, not a variable, in the equation), and other easily disprovable arguments which are really just ignoring the 500-lb. elephant in the room: the music industry is suffering due to widespread piracy.
So, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your "apparently quite rare" statment. The evidence shows otherwise.
"It also doesn't take into account the actual increase in sales due to sharing (try before you buy), increased exposure to artists, and access to music that you could not otherwise buy or find in stores."
This is also a straw man for a couple of reasons: first, CD sales are hurting, so any "benefit" to the industry or artists is being swallowed up by the fact that as a whole, more and more people are choosing to get their music for free rather than buy it. Additionally, almost any illegal act, civil or criminal, has a "well, it COULD have a beneficial side effect" argument. It's useful for rationizing it to yourself if the goal is to feel better about what you're doing, but that's about it.
The RIAA got in trouble with that "Usher" file naming debacle, so they've started checking content more carefully. I'd expect the MPAA to exercise the same due diligence, wouldn't you?
However, trying that stunt you describe would certainly result in lots of pissed off fellow Kazaa users.
Eh, I should have used Preview.
As I was saying:
At any rate, maybe I can explain the original poster's point better. If I create something (a book, or some software, or a song) for which there is a total market of X people, and if this gets out on the P2P networks which facilitates N (where N is a subset of X) people to download it for free instead of paying me, I have lost a sale. My market size has shrunk. This is not a "victimless crime." Your statement that copyright infringement "deprives the copyright holder of nothing" is only accurate if 100% of those who download rather than buy would not have bought in the first place. Otherwise, the copyright holder has been deprived of a sale.
"That is a huge difference. Civil vs Criminal illegal, to be exact. By calling it theft, you are changing it from a civil offense to a criminal offense. There *IS* a difference between them. The law makes a distinction between them, why can't you?"
It's an extremely common perception among /. readers that copyright infringement is exclusively a civil offense. Nonetheless, in US law, there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement. Here are the details.
It can also be an eye-opener to Google on "criminal copyright infringement." You'll be rewarded with plenty of links to cases in the USA where parties were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement and have been sentenced to jail time.
At any rate, maybe I can explain the original poster's point better. If I create something (a book, or some software, or a song) for which there is a total market of X people, and if this gets out on the P2P networks which facilitates X - N (where 0
Yeah, didn't think so. The RIAA is going after people who download copyrighted material for which their members own the copyright. Except when mistakes happen (the "usher" file name brouhaha), they're not after people who trade music for which the copyright holder has given permission; they have no right to and no need to. Nor have they stated that this is wrong.
"Piracy" is in the dictionary as synonymous with copyright violation. You're tilting at windmills on that one at best, and if you're actually implying that software piracy is piracy but music piracy isn't, you're giving the impression that you believe copyright holders have a different value in society depending on whether they choose to write code or compose music.
"The RIAA, to protect a dying monopoly, has engaged in pure manipulation of facts and emotions."
Remember, the RIAA is a trade organization that represents members of the recording industry. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of record labels, so the industry has no more of a monopoly than the auto industry has a monopoly on making cars. Anybody with the means and the talent can start a record company. Whether your new record company presses hard CDs or distributes music online, and whether or not you choose to join the RIAA is up to you, either way, you're now a part of the recording industry.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that a copyright holder has a monopoly on how their work is distributed. If so, you are absolutely correct. This is what copyright means, in a nutshell. If you write a book or a poem or a play or a fugue or a command-line utility, you hold the copyright and only you get to decide how it is distributed. As it should be.
"Are you sure about that? I, being a socialist, will claim it has more to do with ideology than jealousy."
Sadly, I am. While you have the inarguable courage and the conviction of your beliefs, too many of the responses have that reek of resentment toward uppity artists who have made more than they deserve.
"You just contradicted yourself. Do you claim that certain jobs deserve low pay? Or do you not? You cannot say that you believe the "right" education and "right" choices will make you rich, and then claim that you are not making a statment on the class nature of society. Either you support classes or you oppose them!"
"Right" is contextual. The right thing is whatever makes you happy. For me, that's money -- and for those who point out that money doesn't buy happiness, it sure beats the hell out of being poor. And to be clear, by "right education" I certainly don't exclusively mean prep schools and Ivy League universities. I have no such thing, but I knew what I needed to learn and I worked hard at absorbing the right things. It's served me well.
Nonsense. The definition's been around since before you or I were born.
Back when I was young, Apple software pirates used the term with pride. I'm talking the Apple ][, not the Mac (ask your parents). They adopted names like "Jolly Roger" and, on the whole, warmly embraced the term.
It's just a word. Don't be afraid of it.
"Unless you're getting MP3s with a cutlass and an eyepatch, it's not piracy."
If you're getting them against the wishes of the copyright holder, it's piracy. Here's the dictionary definition. That's the accepted term, whether it's software, music, or any other copyrighted material. Let's not fool ourselves. Pirating $1,000.00 worth of music is just as illegal as pirating $1,000.00 worth of software or any other copyrighted material. Musicians are not second-class citizens; this is no "some copyright holders are more equal than others" situation.
You make some good arguments but pretending that music piracy isn't really piracy won't help anybody's cause.
"The hookers-and-blow crowd might still prefer going with a major-label contract, but the labels no longer have their de facto monopoly on distribution."
Distribution of physical CDs to stores is just one part of the services that a record label offers an artist. The record label typically finances the production and and promotion, as well -- these things can be hugely costly. The labels recoup this investment by selling recordings.
"That's why the RIAA and others are desperately trying to portray all downloading as a criminal act."
I see this mentioned fairly often on slashdot, but I have yet to see a link to evidence that backs this up. Do you have a citation for this? I'd really be surprised, as iTMS is doing gangbuster business and the record companies must be thrilled that it's taking off. A sale is a sale.
"They're engaging in a campaign of psychology to create an unthinking aversion to non-label distribution"
Wow, that sounds pretty bad, if it's true! Do you have a citation for this, as well?