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.

[ServesURight]

No flames here - every artist should create their own website and let fans download sample copies of their music free in the hopes that these fans will purchase their music for about $2 per song.

Also artists should do what Metallica did in the early 80s - they went straight to their audience by playing live.

RIAA can go screw themselves. CDs cost less than 50 cents to produce and then they try to sell them for damn near $20 when there's only one or two good songs on them. Bastards.

[babygene]

"Obviously musicians are trying to make money for their work."

I am not suggesting that musicians or authors should not make money. I am an inventor, I have writen songs, and I own a software company. Clearly I am a supporter of interlectual property rights.

However the world is not going to stand still for these record companies. They need to come up with a new way of adding value in light of the new technology available or go out of business. As I said before, the creators of the interlectual property will find a way to be compensated.

[babygene]

"every artist should create their own website and let fans download sample copies of their music free in the hopes that these fans will purchase their music for about $2 per song."

If the artist got two cents per song that would be better than the deal they have today.

[PRND21]

Bump. Smart thread.

[babygene]

" 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."


Just out of curiosity, when one goes to your profile page, there is what looks like a professionally taken picture of some horses with Santa hats on. I assume you took the originals?

It used to be that only things that were so marked were protected by copyright law. Going back even further, things had to be registered. Today neither are requirements. Almost all work by professional photographers is copyrighted.

[Mr. Bungle]

Your response is almost entirely devoid of reason.

I've said my peace on similar threads before. I won't bother again.

[HairOfTheDog]

Thank you very much! But those are my own photos of my own animals, cut and pasted from different photographs, resized to proportion and arranged together. I drew the little Santa hats in MS Paint. All of the photos on my profile page, except the stolen hobbit cartoon, (oh... and the one of the brave kitty) are my own, including the oil painting at the bottom.

Of course I have taken images from websites and posted them here in threads. If you knew me at all, you would know that I have, and named better examples. I love to share stills from Lord of the Rings, which is of course, not mine. I told you I am not blameless, I admitted that.

[HairOfTheDog]

I am not quite sure where we differ. I admit to copying stuff off the internet. I just didn't say it was right.

In the case where I am copying something that would otherwise be for sale, like songs and movies, I think it is wrong to steal it if its creator doesn't authorize it being copied on the internet. I don't think there should be a huge controversy about that. It is wrong to steal it.

[IncPen]

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?

Neither.

I'm suggesting the labels (with RIAA complicity) are the beneficiaries of an illegal, government-sponsored monopoly.

I'm suggesting that people get involved with it in the hope they'll one day have the clout to dictate the terms. And they get into it because it's the only game there is, unfortunately.

Ask Courtney Love how it works.

[IncPen]

You amplify a couple of excellent points.

Olso, some people buy a new car every year. Other folks pick up something from the used car lot. (Ford doesn't get paid again when a person buys a used car)

RIAA, before Napster came along to occupy it's evil personage, was trying to put CD resale shops out of business, or extract a tribute from the proprietors for a cut of the resale.

What bunk.

Many of the older folks are not intrested in the "new" music and the stuff they would like to listen to is not available on the shelf.

There's an old Dave Mason album that I really like, called "Certified Live".

It's never been released in the US as a CD (I know, I know, that's the European version- not sold in the US, maybe available on eBay). Very rare nonetheless.

I'm aware from collector newsgroup postings that it's available in its entirety online, I haven't availed myself of it.

But you can see my point: the labels have no interest in releasing it on CD because it's a niche piece, even though I'd buy it.

[IncPen]

Your response is almost entirely devoid of reason.

Almost meaning not completely, so you must have gleaned at least a smidgen from what I spent all that time typing to you about. I'll consider it a small victory.

On the other hand, maybe I made complete sense to you, and you're slinking away.

I've said my peace on similar threads before. I won't bother again.

It's your nickel, do as you wish.

[IncPen]

Your response is almost entirely devoid of reason.

Almost meaning not completely, so you must have gleaned at least a smidgen from what I spent all that time typing to you about. I'll consider it a small victory.

On the other hand, maybe I made complete sense to you, and you're slinking away.

I've said my peace on similar threads before. I won't bother again.

It's your nickel, do as you wish.

[EL MALO]

I have to agree with Yakboy here. Somehow, I'm 100% sure that we're dealing with the age old problem of market forces contradicting legislation. I'm also fairly sure that most of what's downloaded would not otherwise be purchased in the absence of file sharing. Most of what I've downloaded is a replacement for what I've already purchased and had damaged or stolen, and the rest is stuff that I don't feel is worth paying any monetary price for. Regardless, the pure fact of the matter is that file sharing is here for good, and there's nothing, nothing that the all powerful government can do to get rid of it. The free market has determined that music is inexpensive, even free. I do not believe that it's stealing, but rather a check to the market tampering that the record companies, and government have perpetuated for so long. Isn't market tampering the real evil that hurts us all? I challenge any anti-freemarket marxist out there to debate that one.

[per loin]

Yes. All public libraries must be immediately closed, and their staff imprisoned.