[wizzler]

OK, we have different opinions on the MAP case and antitrust law. That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

But on to your whole thing about the "RIAA has no one to blame but itself" ....

Is it possible to have an argument about downloading and copyright without somebody tossing the RIAA red herring into the mix? Just for once? Please? These arguments inevitably descend into armchair theorizing about the economics of the record industry. Suddenly everybody's an expert on the music biz.

But who cares why -- or even IF -- the "record industry" is in trouble? For the purposes of this discussion, can't we talk about the philosophical, legal and moral implications of the issue? The RIAA just happens to be one entity arguing one side of this case. Its economic health, its Luddite attitude, its liberal politics -- none of these have to do with whether downloading is right or wrong.

These debates always get so screwy because they turn into arguments about "what's wrong with the record industry" instead of "what's wrong with downloading."

[Shethink13]

I'll take a stab at debate without the anti-RIAA argument.
Would you care to rumble? :^)

[HamiltonJay]

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.