Posted on 12/14/2002 6:45:48 AM PST by new cruelty
Record labels together with technology companies are meeting consumers' desire to access music online. Looking back over the past year, the legitimate marketplace has grown by leaps and bounds. Four different services now offer content from every major music company, and several others provide a rich array of music and listening options. Music fans can enjoy hundreds of thousands of tracks in many different ways.
But what these services do not yet have is enough customers. No business can be expected to compete against an illegal service that is offering the same product for free.
If the legitimate services are to have a chance to succeed in the marketplace, we must take action against those who trample the copyrights of songwriters, artists and record labels.
The notion that pursuing peer-to-peer network piracy violates personal privacy is just plain wrong.
First, no one enjoys the right to commit a federal crime anonymously, and downloading or uploading copyrighted works such as software, movies or music without permission is clearly illegal.
Second, users open up their computers to the peer-to-peer networks, not copyright owners. It's like walking down the street holding up a sign and then being mad that someone has read it.
And third, colleges and others can address this problem in non-invasive ways, such as using filtering systems and bandwidth-management controls.
Ironically, it's the peer-to-peer networks that actually put users' privacy at greatest risk. A recent study by Hewlett-Packard showed that typical users of a network such as Kazaa inadvertently expose personal files, including credit card information and e-mail, for millions to rummage through.
Given the scope of the problem, we are taking measured steps to combat online piracy. These efforts are a necessary means to an important end, which is an expanding and dynamic legitimate online marketplace -- a reality achieved after a year of progress and multiple new licensing agreements from the major record companies.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
The concept of an individual freely signing a contract with another individual was around long before Hilary Rosen or RIAA. In my very narrow example, I see this as a simple issue of the right of a free person to sign a contract with another free person, nothing more nothing less. Don't like the terms? Then don't sign the contract.
The RIAA does not govern how labels treat their artists. Their aim is to protect the interests of both artist and label. Neither label nor artist gain their due when piracy is rampant.
You need to do something about those fingernails, though ;)
Knowing what moral contortions folks assume to get free stuff (how many Liberals are there in the world?), I've got my suspicions.
You're assuming that artists would employ the same bone-headed schemes that have perpetuated the RIAA in selling their music.
Don't forget that Napster rose up and became what it was because of a void in the market. We can argue all day just what that void was, but the truth is that the RIAA thrives in a vacuum, and like the old saw goes, 'nature abhors a vacuum'.
I have a different view than many.
I believe that artists would be encouraged to fix a price that the market will bear, and that the free market will support those who the market chooses. As it stands, consumers are forced to pay a tax to the labels to get the music they want. Liberal no-talent parasites like Hilary Rosen can't see that punitive taxation creates and feeds a black market (if you think the WOD is bad, wait til the black market in cigarettes gets going in this country).
Clearly the market values the music at a lower price than the labels do. In fact, I would argue that the labels could earn ten times the money they do if they cut their prices by 70%, but try telling that to a no-talent label exec who drives a Mercedes and has a Clintonian taste for nose candy.
The reason Napster is a success is that consumers are forced to buy 13 crap songs on a CD to get the two they really want.
In a better model, consumers could pay $1.00 per song; artists wouldn't have to release crap, and the price structure would be comparable to the cost of a retail CD if purchasing all the songs, or the cost of a bulk CD if only buying one or two.
Further, in the model I've described, the consumer knows his $15 is rewarding the artist, not the cocaine-addled hangers-on at the labels.
Actually, honestly, I don't download MP3s - I don't have the bandwidth here at home, and I'd probably get fired if I tried it at work. I do buy maybe 3 or 4 CDs a year retail and pick up a lot at secondhand shops.
Dilemmas can be fun sometimes - FR seems to specialize in them. One of its attractions.
Nonsense.
I'm saying the people using Napster aren't motivated consumers at $15 per CD.
And RIAA can bleat all they want about 'the law', but it's bad law- ridiculous law- that they're hiding behind, and the market is showing them why.
Who would buy when they can steal?
And to read here, I guess it's justified if the people you're stealing from are rich fat cat's right?
(the unions use a similar, "moral" argument to justify their extortion)
I agree, but I would posit that Napster came to be not because of the doings of the artist, but because of the doings of the labels (pricing, distribution, narrow catalog) and the RIAA (lobbying for ridiculous IP protections, defending the industry)
The music industry is collapsing and I, for one, am happy to see it go
It shouldn't, in my opinion. Yours is a classic example of law made-to-order for whomever has the best lobbyists and the biggest checkbook. The only point I was trying to make is that people in the US are pretty much free to sign contracts with whomever they want. Therefore, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the artist who willingly signs a contract with a record label then cries "oppression."
Who would buy when they can steal?
And to read here, I guess it's justified if the people you're stealing from are rich fat cat's right?
(the unions use a similar, "moral" argument to justify their extortion)
My argument has nothing to do with the wealth of the people involved, except to point out that it's ill-gotten gain. They've gained their wealth on the heels of some incredibly bad intellectual property law, which was bought with the money of the consumers who are suffering for it.
That's the money argument, but a side issue is that IP law has allowed a relative few to hijack our culture.
The net-net of this is that Napster arose to address the issue, and quite handily put the music-mafia on the run.
As for your analogy of 'unions', you've got it exactly backwards.
In truth, the labels have gotten some very bad legislation passed which allows them to unfairly dictate the rules of the marketplace (prices=wages), and to force us (read: their employers) to do business their way, the markets be damned.
We (the consumers) have decided to "lock out" (Napster) the labels and RIAA and do our business without them.
Those who wish to play by the rules of the real market (Janis Ian comes to mind, and Courtney Love) are doing quite well without the labels.
Note that I don't use napster or whatever, I'm just calling it as I see it. (I haven't bought a CD in 10 years, either)
Are you suggesting the artists were robbed of their work? Or did they sign a contract and sell it in a manner similar to any other product?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.