RIAA To Sue Individual's for File Sharing (This could mean you!!!!)

Miami Herald ^ | 06/25/2003 | Ted Bridis

[Tamar1973]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935525/posts

[Calpernia]

>>>Recording a song off of a radio is also prohibited, even if for your own personal use.

HOW can this be true? Why to radios and stereos come with internal feed to make recordings?

[SamAdams76]

For example: Recording the content onto a cassette tape for your own personal use.

Actually this is perfectly legal and the RIAA receives a royalty on every blank cassette tape sold, whether or not the end-user puts RIAA music on it or not.

[Houmatt]

You know, it was not all that long ago I felt the same way you do. Not anymore. Here's why:

1) The RIAA tried to get a bill passed last year (sponsored by Sen. Ernest "There's too much consumin' goin' on out dere" Hollings) that would have created an exemption for them to hire hackers to go in and corrupt not only file sharing programs such as Kazaa, Grokster and Morpheus, but the files themselves as well, causing untold damage to the computer that downloads it.

2) The RIAA has deliberately raised fees on internet-only radio stations with the intent of wiping them out.

3) The RIAA and record companies conspired to keep prices for CDs high.

4) Record companies have intentionally sat on product they know there is a market for. (Case in point: Shortly after The Beatles Anthology Volume 3 was released, it was announced there was nothing more to release. I know for a fact, however, that is hogwash. There is still a lot of stuff out there (alternate takes and unreleased material, such as, Return To Commonwealth, Goodbye, All Things Must Pass) and they have been released, albeit in bootleg form. Judging from how Anthology sold, we know there is a market for this stuff. So why did EMI et al lie to us?)

And the same things applies to music that is out of print.

If record companies are not willing to make things available to the consumer, and there is a market for it, the consumer will be forced to go elsewhere for it.

Which is why blaming the consumer, and going to war with them, is the height of arrogance and stupidity within the record industry.

[Houmatt]

Actually, I was being facetious.

[Calpernia]

Sorry, didn't know. That Wizzler person had me under the impression that it was illegal.

So, I'm back to my question again. How is recording a song from the radio different than recording from the Net?

[Old Professer]

Grammatical.

[Orangedog]

I'll have to introduce you to my ex wife...you two could go bowling or something.

[Houmatt]

How is recording a song from the radio different than recording from the Net?

Actually, it's not. And as long as you are downloading songs for your own, personal use, it does not make any sense for the record industry to go after individuals who do it.

[Golden Eagle]

I understand your point completely. I have a prepared statement to read, obtained from one of my previous posts:

"While I feel that the RIAA may be overreacting to ongoing theft of corporate and privately owned music, and possibly attempting to extort additional fees from both paying and potential customers to make restitution, I also feel that their cause is just, and that illegal duplication of virtual copies of privately owned works is a serious moral and financial problem for the United States."

I have not claimed to have all the answers, but (unfortunately) feel that the moral and legal issues are on the side of the RIAA.

[Houmatt]

And I am afraid to say I vehemently disagree with you, based not only on reasons already given, but also on the belief the consumer should have the last word, as businesses and industries can and will live or die on the whim of the consumer.

It reminds me of a sketch I had seen on the long dead ABC-TV series, Fridays. It featured a Howdy Doody-like marionette doing a show for children. But as soon as the camera turned off, the puppet became very nasty and belligerent with everyone within shouting distance.

Finally, after he defiantly shouts, "I don't need you! I don't need anybody!", the strings promptly fall away, and the puppet clunks onto the floor, where he stays until the camera goes to black.

My point, of course, is the music industry needs the consumer. In fact, it is wholly dependent upon it. How far do you think they will get if they arrogantly alienate us?

About as far as that puppet.

[bvw]

I love that analogy. It is very parallel to the fable of King Midas as well, or of the "Goose that layed the Golden Eggs".

[Golden Eagle]

I vehemently disagree with you, based not only on reasons already given, but also on the belief the consumer should have the last word, as businesses and industries can and will live or die on the whim of the consumer.

It's called "the purchasing power of the consumer", and a cliche is "let their wallets do their talking". These are legal and respected ways of dealing with the RIAA if you are unhappy with them.

Stealing their property and giving it away to others is not.

[Golden Eagle]

Also, just so you know, I haven't bought a CD in over ten years, today's music is crap. But I've never once downloaded music illegally, and if I ever have a need for music other than my current collection, I will pay for fair use.

[bvw]

Unfortunately while the Evil Queens of Big Music Biz, Big Software Biz, and Big Newspaper Biz are preening about how beautiful they are, and claiming all rights to the IP of "beauty" the kingdom is beggared, and the wells of the law are poisoned by the Queenies so anxious are they to kill off any competing beauty.

[A. Pole]

The Recording Industry Association of America, citing significant sales declines, said it will begin Thursday to search Internet file-sharing networks to identify music fans who offer "substantial" collections of MP3 song files for downloading.

It is comforting to know that recording industry is not affected by the present economical situation and that file-sharing is the main problem. Hopefuly the emerging Indian and Chinese markets will help.

[Golden Eagle]

on the belief the consumer should have the last word, as businesses and industries can and will live or die on the whim of the consumer.

I already made comments above, but in addition, and most importantly, 'illegal distribution of solen property' is not a business.

No, not a business, what it is, is unfair competition - that no one profits from. And because the cost is 'free', it is certainly is appealing to the consumer, and turns them mostly into thieves.

Your end model is a situation where unfairly competitive stolen copies of music dominate the market, and no one makes any money or invests in music killing the industry completely. Along with encouraging further moral decline of the consumers. I really so no benefit to this line of thinking whatsoever.