Digital piracy of movies is 'wrong,' college students chided [by -- ugh -- Jack Valenti]

Up to post 11, EVERYBODY here is wrong.

Reread my post. Did I lobby on behalf of those who download movies or music?

All I said that such a thing (downloading movies) is a big waste of time because, unlike music, movies have fallen in price to the point that anyone can buy one on the cheap. VHS movies even cheaper. Besides, the quality would suck.

So go pound sand or something....

Post #24 - Well said!

Damn, and I checked that twice.

Yes, Goldmember.

It's only a matter of time before a big named group releases an albumn with no label at all behind them....

It's already happened. There's a rock group out in Seattle that distributes its music entirely through it's website.

They also run their promotions and concerts online also.

People seem to forget that it was Metallica who bypassed the recording suits and started playing in front of live concerts and shows.

The recording industry as we know it is dead. Within five years, CDs will go the way of the 8-track and vinyl. Everyone will get their music through a pod where they can download their favorite songs. There will be no more Platinum or Gold sales standard - sales and artist status will be measured in downloads and airplay.

Here's a story that gives some sales details: Big Music's Broken Record

The reason discussions regarding the morality/legality of DFS always degrade into "what's wrong with the record industry" is because the RIAA always starts the discussion with ITS HURTING OUR BUSINESS, PIRACY IS THE NUMBER 1 REASON Sales are off, revenues are down etc etc etc... which is not demonstrably the case, the RIAA tries to makes its argument from a faulty baseline.

Here are the facts, "piracy" has been part of the recording industry since people had the ability to record sounds, period. I can remember back in the mid to late 70s my parents had a reasonable record collection, and our regular babysitter at the time would often bring her old reel to reel with her when she babysat, and would record the albums after she put us to bed on her reel to reel. Now, was she violating copyright law? Certainly.. were the record companies out there ranting and raving over it? No... later Cassettes replaced reel to reel and copying albumns and then even songs directly off the radio became even easier, and there isn't a person in america who hasn't recorded a song in some fashion that they personally did not directly pay for... then VCR's became household and copying movies and/or recording shows off of TV became common... did the MPAA get jumping ugly, or the RIAA scream bloody hell? Nope... because these things NEVER threated control of the distribution channel.. CD burners and DFS came along... only thing DFS has done has made the distribution/sharing of these copies easier.. but that's not the real threat to the RIAA... the real threat is now the distribution channel of these DFS is far faster, more efficient and better than what the RIAA has in place... now the RIAA does not control the distribution channel, and that is the true threat... that's what threatens their power. Piracy is not largely demonstrably hurting their bottom line today, anymore than it ever has... what it is doing is allowing distribution of music to the masses in a way they can't and don't control! And that is what scares the bejeebers out of them. IF artists don't need labels, then labels are dead. And if the labels don't wake up to reality, they truly will have nothign to offer but promotion, and thus be dead, at least in their current forms.

Lets face it look at the RIAA business model, we offer a contract to a band... we front them some cash to live off of, and the cost to record an album... If the band is unestablished this money is minimal, then if we think the band has some mainstream appeal we will launch our marketing arm into motion to get the band airplay and attention... then if all works well we make our profit back in spades on the albums sales. The band may get a cut of the albumn sales but for the most part their real income will come via touring, not through their points on the albumn.

Now, suddenly a band doesn't need the labels money to make the albumn.... it doesn't need the label to distribute the albumn at all... what is left for the label? PROMOTION, that's all they have to offer... and they know darn well with out that front end carrot (pay for production of the albumn, and get it distributed) they can't get away with the back end rape. If promotion is the only commodity they have their entire model breaks down.

The RIAA just hasn't kept up with the times, and they have no one to blame but themselves. CDR technology is here now, why is it a kid can't walk into a record store, plunk down $5 or $10 (tops) and walk out with a custom burned CD with exactly the songs they want on it, burned as they choose them? You could set them up as kiosks in malls, arcades, amusement parks or other venues... there is nothing there that is not technologically feasible, and you can't say there is no demand for it... the gripe of the average albumn having maybe 1 to 2 good songs certainly predates digital recording...

This is a win-win for everyone... stores no longer have to carry physical inventory, other than blank CDR's... their square footage expenses drop dramatically... music becomes more customized and the distribution becomes cheaper as well, for now instead of phsyically shipping CD's a simple DSL/T1 line into the music store allows them to update their library with new and fresh material instantly... if a user wants an obscure title, they can get it on the spot, no custom ordering and waiting... etc etc... There is nothing here I am advocating that JUKEBOXES don't do now (other than the physical burning of the CD, but since they are a controlled environment, memory only storage is fine). It makes sense for the Jukebox distributor to update, and change music via phone lines rather than physically lug around CD's or Records... but the RIAA is still forcing the old system.

The mantra is simple, EVOLVE or become irrellevant... and RIAA has firmly placed itself on the path to irrellevance.. they have no one to blame but themselves.

Not to come off contemptuous of the fact that you just wrote a long essay, but my response is pretty simple and thus is short:

The RIAA is irrelevant to the moral and legal arguments regarding copyright. If record labels have failed to "embrace technology," if they've worked with a dumb business model, who cares? It has nothing to do with whether downloading is right or wrong. It's irrelevant to the philosophical core of this issue; the tendency to gravitate toward it reveals an odd mental tic.

There's no such thing as 'intellectual property.'

This guy has just exposed himself as an idiot. Next.

Wizzler, It has everything to do with whether downloading is right or wrong.

You can make the argument that downloading is wrong... if you can prove the original copy was swiped from a non publicly accessable manor, then yes, its wrong to distribute it. And yes, it is likely that most MP3's are ripped from CD's.

However now that XM etc type radios are out there, music is being BROADCAST digitally, oh and lets not forget about DAT or other methods that take analog input and record them digitally and if someone digitally records a song off of a radio or other manner, they have not violated any law by having that copy, or even sharing that copy with friends. Provided they have not charged money for it.

The act of downloading a copy of a song is not inately illegal.. the act of sharing a song you did not get through free channels is. If the downloader knows for a fact the song is ripped... then you have some moral and perhaps legal culpability. Remember here we are talking about "COPYRIGHTS" not ownership rights. They are legally 2 independent and seperate things.

Now, should kids be ripping CD's and sharing them with their friends? No... should kids have been making copies of their cassettes in the 80s and sharing them with their friends? No... Should people have been making reel to reel copies of their albumns and 8 tracks in the 70s and sharing them? No... you are right, they should not be. Reality is however that people always have and always will do such things, right or wrong.

I have no argument with the statement, copying a song from a cd you don't own for your own use is wrong. I have a huge argument with the insane and indefensible argument that the RIAA's biggest problem is piracy... when it is clearly not.

I was in a mall in MORGANTOWN, WV!! Morgantown bloody West Virginia, population ~50k... there was a woman with a kiosk there, the kiosk contained, a PC, a cash register, and a bunch of CDR's... what was her product? Personalized CD's you can buy a CD with songs with your childs name in them.. You pay her $X she gives you a CD with 10 or so songs... the most common names she had preburned and ready to be bought, the less common names she'd burn for you on the spot off her computer.... (and yes it was all legal). So if some housewife from Morgantown WV can figure out how to utilize OFF THE SHELF technology to give people what they want the way they want it... Don't even try to present the nonsense that RIAA's main problems are due to anything less than their own incompetence.

We release 1/3 fewer titles, music trends in a slup, no big stars, no bankable stars, economies in the toilet, we haven't utilized any new technology in 15+ years.. we haven't responded to customer demand... and piracy is why we are losing money... Please, be real.