ONLINE PIRACY IS ILLEGAL

USA Today ^ | December 10, 2002 | Hillary Rosen

[IncPen]

I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists.

I don't use these peer-to-peer services, but IMHO it's just desserts for an industry in dire need of being destroyed.

_{flame away}

[Rosencrantz]

the record industry must evolve if it is to survive. technology trudges on. keep up, or get out.

New alternatives to CDs like DVD Audio are nearly as dramatic a shift as VHS to DVD. The prevelence of surround sound home systems would suggest an enormous potential audience... and the performance difference is not yet "sharable" on P2P networks.

That's not to say it won't be... ;)

[strela]

I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists.

Isn't that a matter for the artists and the labels to sort out between themselves? Nobody holds a gun to the artist's heads to make them sign with record labels. Seems to me that most of the screwing going on between artists and labels is consensual in nature.

There are certainly valid arguments to be made for whichever side of this controversy you find yourself. Record labels have indeed screwed artists, and RIAA comes off as a bunch of church lady blowhards who are trying to line their pockets at the expense of the truly talented. However, I just can't help thinking that music pirates who justify their theft of other people's property by citing the misdeeds of others don't have much of a moral high ground to stand on.

(And no, I'm not insinuating in any way that you are a music pirate. Its the ones who admit they do it but don't have any moral problem with stealing other people's work who bug me).

[Caipirabob]

Four different services now offer content from every major music company, and several others provide a rich array of music and listening options.

Has anyone heard of these Services? I haven't heard even so much as a rumor of them.

[Mr. Bungle]

Record companies, not too far from now, will probably mutate into mere PR agencies, as they will offer no production or distribution services to an artist beyond what he can do in his own living room. That's just the way of things, and probably good.

But once that happens, and it will, the arguments surrounding piracy will be stripped entirely of all "social justice" fig leaves. I'll wait to see if "ripping off record companies that only screw artists" becomes "ripping off stupid rock stars who shouldn't be that rich anyway."

Knowing what moral contortions folks assume to get free stuff (how many Liberals are there in the world?), I've got my suspicions.

[HairOfTheDog]

I know it is wrong, and yet I have done it.

Worse, I have downloaded movies I love, made by people who deserve my money. Now, in that case, the download did not replace my money. I bought the DVD anyway when it came out, because the download was not as good. But a teensy bit of technology would fix that, allowing me to download films that would be showable on my big TV, rather than my computer. Then the movie people will be in trouble too.

We shouldn't be able to get it for free. Music and movie makers deserve to be paid for the work we want. I just think we are closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. How could we stop it now? The sites don't even have to be in this country or operate by our laws.

[error99]

Here is something that has always "bugged" me...
Now, this is for my own personal use, not for any profit or commercial enterprise. I purchased some recorded music. The price I paid covered included "royalties" for the artists. A few years go by and the media-de-jour changes, so I re-purchase the same recorded music, and again I pay royalties. In some cases I have done this 3 times when going from vinyl to tape to CD. How is it the artist is entitled to new royalties every time the media changes? I am just an individual, I can only play and listen to one recording at a time. Every time that technology advances and the recording media is changed, it seems like the same artists are getting re-paid for the same work, over and over and over again. This just bugs me for some reason.

(and this is from a guy who still maintains a working 8 track player; several working automatic turntables; hundreds of vinyl albums; and thousands of 45's)

[Caipirabob]

However, I just can't help thinking that music pirates who justify their theft of other people's property by citing the misdeeds of others don't have much of a moral high ground to stand on.

I think the issue in the music industry all comes down to market forces. In a another scenario, like cigarettes, the price was raised (for whatever reason) in such a way that it far exceeded perceived value. In response, a black market grew which met the demand of the consumer.

In the music industry, the demand for a $20 CD does not exist at the level that the industry hopes for and the perceived value and content of today's standard musical offering is not enough to compel the consumer to buy it. I would argue that most individuals are interested in persuing legal means of acquiring their music, but with the current pricing structure, the market convulsed and peer-to-peer sharing became the preferred means of the consumer to acquire their music.

I'm not condoning or condeming it, just making a statement of what I see are the facts of the situation. The music industry can either profit or perish by those hard facts.

[HairOfTheDog]

So if you buy a book once, but wear it out and need to buy a new copy, you shouldn't have to pay the author again because you have already paid for the story once? And they are supposed to keep track of that? Ridiculous, but I think you know that.

If you like their work so much that you buy it again and again on new media, I can't imagine why you would begrudge paying them for work that has obviously stood the test of time. Sounds like they did very good work indeed!

[strela]

But a teensy bit of technology would fix that, allowing me to download films that would be showable on my big TV, rather than my computer. Then the movie people will be in trouble too.

If I had a choice of watching first-run movies in my comfortable Barcalounger and using my very good home theater, or in a dark cold barn with screaming babies, 500 other people all coughing and shedding virus, sticky floors, and popcorn that you need a second mortgage to afford, guess which one I'd select?

How could we stop it now? The sites don't even have to be in this country or operate by our laws.

I don't think we can - hence the dilemma. RIAA (aka "Buggy Whips 'R Us") can't sue everybody who ever used the Internet to download a song or a movie. They can't identify the "criminals" to begin with and spit on the concept of personal freedom by even trying. And your point about offshore sites is very apt - does RIAA intend to sue every single person in the entire world with a modem and a dialup connection? Pass me the (hopefully) cheap popcorn - I want to watch them try.

[strela]

In the music industry, the demand for a $20 CD does not exist at the level that the industry hopes for and the perceived value and content of today's standard musical offering is not enough to compel the consumer to buy it.

Excellent point. All excellent points, as a matter of fact. Who wants to pay that much for a CD that might have one or two decent songs but is padded with crap?

[HairOfTheDog]

So it sounds like we are both willing to do it, but we know it is wrong. Heh. At least we are not claiming to be righteous.

Nothing like struggling with a great moral dillemma is there? Ha!

[Jhoffa_]

I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists.

I guess auto workers who steal SUV's off the assembley line are justified, since the product is prohibitively expensive and it "screws" all the suppliers who don't get a big slice of the profits.

[IncPen]

I made an abbreviated post (this issue has been beaten to death here) but you've got the gist of my argument.

The RIAA and labels have had a virtual monopoly on popular entertainment in this country for 80 years.

Napster is the cultural equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

I hail the effort.

[new cruelty]

but you also get all those nice pictures and words about how the album was made and crap like that. surely thats worth 19.99.

[strela]

[strela]

but you also get all those nice pictures and words about how the album was made and crap like that. surely thats worth 19.99.

They should put a page in the liner notes showing Hilary Rosen having sex with farm animals - that might be worth a sawbuck ...

[IncPen]

Isn't that a matter for the artists and the labels to sort out between themselves? Nobody holds a gun to the artist's heads to make them sign with record labels. Seems to me that most of the screwing going on between artists and labels is consensual in nature.

Maybe so, but I have a different view.

Intellectual property law in this country is so badly written and rife with special interests (can anyone say "Disney Copyright Giveaway of 1998"?) that the farce had to come to this sooner or later.

For Hilary Rosen to hide behind "the law" is spurious, when she and her ilk bought the law they're hiding behind.