ONLINE PIRACY IS ILLEGAL

USA Today ^ | December 10, 2002 | Hillary Rosen

[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.

[new cruelty]

People that pirate music are the same people that lounge around Barnes and Noble reading magazines without paying for them. Saves a ton of money. : )

[babygene]

"Well, when you buy the book and lend it or give it to a friend, you no longer have your copy. It is the same copy that was purchased, and to share it, you must give yours up."

Well, with the web library I suggested, the works would be checked out and checked in. What's the difference?

[The Shootist]

Hell. Half of everything I do is probably illegal.

The Law is a Ass.

[HairOfTheDog]

There may be no difference... in this scenario, are you sending real paper copies like a library or electronic ones? If you send electronic copies, it would be very hard to prevent copying, and the e-copy would not need to be returned before another person could use it. It could be infinately re-created.

[babygene]

" If you send electronic copies, it would be very hard to prevent copying"

Nothing keeps you from copying a book printed on paper either.

Though it may not be cost effective to copy a novel, much of what people check out of libraries is technical works where all you might need to copy is a table, an article, a couple of pages or a chapter.

[HairOfTheDog]

Ease, expense and quality of the copy prevents widespread copying of books. The distribution is limited and not a concern. It is not nearly in the same league as instant worldwide access of free copies of works that are indistinguishable in quality from the original.

[babygene]

I think that's bologna.

I dont know how often you search the internet for things and how usefull that is to you, but "everything" out there worth searching for is copyrighted.

It is just as Illegal for you to download a graphic or an article and read it or use it, as it is to download music. Why shouldn't you pay for this material?

I would contend that if copyrighted stuff was removed from the internet, you would get rid if your internet connection. As would we all.

Even Freerupublic couldn't exist without fair use provisions.

[babygene]

"free copies of works that are indistinguishable in quality from the original"

I would argue that...

If you had store-bought coppies of the latest CD's and tried to sell them at a yard sale, you would probably sell them all.

If you had copies that you burned onto a CDR, they would be worth NOTHING, and you would sell none of them.

[G.Mason]

"We shouldn't be able to get it for free."

Right!

And you need to pay when you post here.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, to some degree you are mixing things that are unrelated. I don't download an article from a website, I read it on their website with their accompanying ads, fees or other ways they support their site. Viewing material they put up on their site is not contrary to their own intended purpose, it is their intended purpose. Sending a link to the site to everyone you know is not copying... copying the text or graphics and sending that out without credit is illegal... and if you did it rampantly, you might get noticed. Whether the violation is worth the trouble is the governing factor.

FR fought a lawsuit about fair use of published articles, and we no longer can post full length articles from those publications that have bothered to sue... So full-length copying is not currently considered fair use by everyone! They make money from ad revenue. They need the hits to their site to get the big ad dollars.

Look, I am not on a moral high ground here, I copy stuff. But I do think the artists that create work for sale deserve to be paid if you want to enjoy their work. They work for money, same as the rest of us, and if you enjoy their work, you should support them. I just don't know how to stop it.

[dogbyte12]

The movie issue is different than the music one I think. A movie is well a movie. An Album is a bundle being forced upon you in that way. The recording industry decided to phase out singles at the same time that albums became more saturated with fillers. They are shocked shocked that people would download the one or two decent songs off an album instead of paying $16 for a bunch of crap.

If every time I went to Burger King to get a whopper, I had to pay $15 and get 3 veggie burgers, fried maggots, a large prune juice, and a goat milk shake as part of a package, I would be ticked off.

They actually have a business model that works. They give you a discount if you buy a burger fries and drink together. However, you are free to buy just one item at a higher cost than packaged together. The RIAA has nobody to blame but themselves.

[HairOfTheDog]

And you need to pay when you post here.

I do. $30 a month. I use it alot. I support it. It is only fair.

[HairOfTheDog]

You are probably right. No one is going to buy your home-made copies of music for very much anyway... it doesn't mean the quality is not as good, it means people at a yard sale are not going to listen to them to find out. Not sure I get your point.

[babygene]

Did you know that the author to the lyrics to a song is paid up to 200 time as much (typicaly 20 times) as the artist that provids the vocal (the part that sells).

The reason the artist doesn't get paid anything much is because it isn't worth anything.

How many people would download lyrics to a song and think nothing of it?

If your mother coppies a recipe from a book or newspaper and sends it to a friend or uses it herself, should that be illegal?

IMHO, this intellectual property crap has gotten way out of hand. And that comes from a guy that has both patented gadgets and written and published music.

[HairOfTheDog]

People have been copying music for years, making tapes, giving them to friends. That doesn't even hit the radar. This is mass-distribution that replaces the need for anyone to ever buy it. I don't have to know someone who would copy it for me, I just go online and get it from a stranger anywhere. It is all about scale.

[babygene]

"Not sure I get your point."

The point is that the value is in the label and the arangement (the tangable property), not the music. The music itself is worth next to nothing.

Turn on the radio and you can hear it all day long for free.

You may say "Well, you have to listen to the commercials and that pays for it".

But I don't, I tune out the commercials very effectivly. I don't have to listen to them unless I choose.

[Tench_Coxe]

I can't speak for IncPen, but the point as I see it is that for a along time the RIAA has been 'the only game in town'. Yes, maybe not a monopoly, but definitely a collusion among members to dominate the market ( for a recent example, there was the big to-do about price fixing with Best Buy and other stores ).

On the one hand, you have the RIAA, which in most cases the artist has to play their game or have a pretty good chance at never making much. On the other hand, you have the consumer who is obviously interested in the artist's product, but because of collusion, is unwilling to pay prices that are fixed artificially high.

I think IncPen is right. The RIAA's business model, at some point, is going to collapse ( and, I suspect, even with the participation of their bought-and-paid-for buddies in Congress ). IncPen offered the same business model I've advocated for several years, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

[Jhoffa_]

Well, if price fixing is the issue then that's illegal.

No question. That's an anti-trust violation.

If RIAA being a 600lb gorilla in the market place is the issue, that's capitalism.

[HairOfTheDog]

The point was, that is how radio stations and websites make money... Whether or not you or anyone else listens to commercials or buy the product because of them is in the mind of every marketing person.

We are going around in circles. Obviously musicians are trying to make money for their work. Rightly so, so am I. Others are taking their work and distributing it widely for free. Is that wrong, and even if so, is it stoppable?

[babygene]

"That doesn't even hit the radar. This is mass-distribution that replaces the need for anyone to ever buy it"

Copyright laws are not about quanty or quality. What you are talking about is the protection of an industry that technology has passed by. It's a shame for the people who made typewriter ribbons as well...

The record companies need to come up with a new way to market their "added value - what ever it is" in light of the new technology, or go out of business.

Trust me, the writers and the authors will not be effected. They will adapt very quickly to any new means of distribution. They may even improve their lot, since they are not doing that well under the current system.