File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!

Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

[John Jorsett]

The Recording Industry Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down and suing users of file-sharing programs has yet to spook people, say developers of these applications.

"Forget about it, dude -- even genocidal litigation can't stop file sharers," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, one of several systems that allow users to upload and download files -- many of which are unauthorized MP3 copies of songs published by the RIAA's member companies. Rosso said file-trading activity among Grokster users has increased by 10 percent in the past few days. Morpheus, another file-trading program, has seen similar growth.

Maybe MP3 downloaders are interpreting the recording industry's threat -- an escalation from its earlier strategy of targeting file-sharing developers -- as a sort of "last call" announcement. Starting June 26, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a news conference, the group would collect evidence against consumers illegally trading files of copyrighted music, with lawsuits to follow in a couple of months.

[discostu]

Rather than going to the RIAA with it they should convince some musicians to sign onto it (and their company) and put the model to use.

I'm not convinced the distribution model is failing, these are just tough times for it. A lot of things are converging to make the RIAA's life very difficult right now, not the least of which is the fact that the music companies have lost their cajones and are no longer taking chances on marginal artists. Interesting that you picked a quote from 2000 that refered to everything changing in the text (book) industry, there was a lot of buzz about digital publishing back then, 3 years later it's all proven to be a bunch of hooey and the book industry is holding together very nicely and still slaughtering trees at an epic rate.

[Tuxedo]

Don't download too many, my FRiend. You might not like the result when RIAA ramps up their enforcement operations.

Except... they are after uploaders. Won't see me. I'm what you might call a leech. And I have firewalls upon firewalls. And a direct connection to the internet. Therefore, I am untraceable. So, if I were to even worry about it, I have no reason.

Yes, blue in the face. Those doing this on a large scale will not be found. The technology for them to hide surpasses the technology RIAA has to find them. Same with software piracy... which by the way, also happens on these networks, along with movies, books, documents, web-content from subscription sites, etc. P2P is a marvelous invention. While being used principally for illicit activities, it is an amazing advancement, perhaps surpassing the internet itself.

[moehoward]

Don't know about legality. I used to work for RCA/A&M (what is now BMG). Back then late night FM radio would track entire LP's. All the label reps would bitch and moan to the retailers about how bad this was for music retailers. They would say "yeah you'r right!" then turn and ring up another blank tape sale.

[strela]

No, it wouldn't, since you haven't actually taken any goods or services away from the store or manufacturer.

Intellectual property can be stolen; the law says so. In this example, you have taken away the knowledge of the design elements of the thing with intent to convert them to your own use and profit, and you have probably trespassed as well by walking into the store and taking the picture without the owner's permission. How many times do we have to say that "theft is theft" before some of you start to get it?

It could be considered copyright infringment if you make the blade yourself, however it's not theft, since nothing was actually removed from the owner (the store in this case).

If you sell said blades and cut into the sales of the original designer, it could very well be considered theft. You can steal intellectual property just as much as you can steal a ham or a car.

BTW, people take pictures of copyrighted ideas all the time without permission. Specific car brands on roads is a big one.

A false analogy. Car manufacturers don't care if people take photos of their products. Artists, record labels, and RIAA DO care very much if people make unauthorized copies of their product. And, its their call if they want to care or not, and its their call if they want to try to do something within the law to stop the theft.

[gitmo]

He still has his product to sell. And he has the same control over his product any other producer has: Once it has been purchased the new owner controls it.

[discostu]

It's abundantly clear that the sharers want a price of zero. All you have to do is look at their reaction to iTune. For years they'd been saying music should be available at a buck a song (even though if you go outside top 40 you'll find that many CDs are actually less than a buck a song, the American Graffiti soundtrack refered to elsewhere is a good example). iTune comes out at a buck a song. What's the reaction of the sharing community? They claim that's too much and the price should be 50 cents a song. Do you have any doubt they'd repeat the action of the price dropped to 50 cents? I don't.

These people aren't facing reality. Look at all the people on this thread desperately trying to claim copyright violation shouldn't be illegal. They have a host of reasons, all of them are bad, and it all boils down to them liking getting songs for free and not wanting to feel they're doing something bad in the process.

Actively seeking after the worst sharers and bringing them to court is a very major step to protect themselves from damage. Then there's the DMCA (much of which I don't agree with), copy protecting CDs (which has proven to be completely useless), and the various licensing chip they're pushing for (which I don't trust). They're trying, but almost everyone disagrees with at least one thing they're doing.

The technology is available but is it a viable distribution method? Will they actually make money that way? The RIAA apparently doesn't think so. We'll find out with iTunes, so far there hasn't been a noticable decrease in illegal file sharing.

[Hajman]

Then they (and you) are doing a darned good impression of doing so by not condemning file sharers for what they are - thieves.

Bring forth a good argument that something was stolen (removed from the owner in some manner), and we'll take you seriously. If you can't show that something was actually removed from the owner, then you haven't shown theft, by definition.

There are three was that the song could have been stolen: 1) The song itself. The way intellectual property (IP) is stolen is by someone claiming it to be their own. Has this happend? No. 2) The medium itself. The way a medium (object) that contains the IP is stolen is by removing it from the owner, thus not allowing the owner to sell the medium. Has this happend? No. 3) The service. One can steal a service (like a radio song) by removing the ability of the radio station to play it and playing it themselves. Has this happend? No.

The only value argument that could be used is a potential value argument (the owner lost a potential sale if the copy is created). However, creating a potential loss of value isn't illegal, and it happens all the time. In fact, it happens everytime competition gets the upper hand.

-The Hajman-

[strela]

He still has his product to sell.

Wrong. The person who illegally copied it has diluted the producer's possible future sales. Intellectual property is still your property, and you have the right to determine how a product you offer for sale can be used.

And he has the same control over his product any other producer has: Once it has been purchased the new owner controls it.

Look up the definition of "intellectual property" some time and get back to me on that one.

[Cultural Jihad]

Let me ask you this then, since you feel the RIAA et al cannot effectively alter their business model, why didn't the advent of the cassette recorder and blank tapes kill the music industry back then? Why didn't the advent of VCRs, VHS tape and the camcorder kill the movie resale business back then?

Like maybe there wasn't you know any broadband or something, dude.

[Hajman]

Intellectual property can be stolen; the law says so. In this example, you have taken away the knowledge of the design elements of the thing with intent to convert them to your own use and profit, and you have probably trespassed as well by walking into the store and taking the picture without the owner's permission. How many times do we have to say that "theft is theft" before some of you start to get it?

The only way to steal intellectual property is to claim it as yours. A copy isn't stolen intellectual property. The claim that the picture was taken without permission is an entirely different argument (and not a very valid one at that, since one can take pictures of any public item, as long as security doesn't fit into it).

If you sell said blades and cut into the sales of the original designer, it could very well be considered theft. You can steal intellectual property just as much as you can steal a ham or a car.

If you sell the blades, then you're commiting a copyright infringment, not theft (cutting into someone else's sells is a potential value loss, which isn't illegal, which I've specified a couple times now). Theft of intellectual property is the same as stealing a car or ham, I agree. However, in order to steal it, you need to claim it as your own, or at least remove it from the owner (claiming it as your own creates an infered removal from the owner). Copying IP on an extra medium isn't doing that (the IP hasn't changed, and you're not claiming it as your own or making money off of it. The only thing changed is the medium, which is yours).

A false analogy. Car manufacturers don't care if people take photos of their products. Artists, record labels, and RIAA DO care very much if people make unauthorized copies of their product. And, its their call if they want to care or not, and its their call if they want to try to do something within the law to stop the theft.

This argument falls under copyright infringment, not theft. Calling everything theft, doesn't make it so. Theft has a specific meaning, and consequences, and it doesn't apply to this.

-The Hajman-

[strela]

Look for the definition of "theft" in the dictionary some time. Cheese-paring sophistry and baseless arguments that theft isn't actually theft are worthy of the Clintons, not Freepers.

[Tuxedo]

Actively seeking after the worst sharers and bringing them to court is a very major step to protect themselves from damage.

Won't happen. The only ones they will get are the small fish at colleges and those on large ISPs. You forget, 90% of the uploaders are overseas, and thereby not subject to US laws or lawsuits. The sharing continues primarily due to these types of threads and stories that spread the word that this stuff is out there. Suppose you had a favorite song while growing up. Then yesterday, you hear it on the radio... it brings back great memories. Now you check on amazon and HMV only to find it is out of print. So, you can either wait until you hear it on the radio and get a tape recorder going (now, that may be a copyright violation), or look it up on iMesh and download it from some kid in Poland. Or, just sit back and maybe never hear it again. The airwaves are public domain, and no radio broadcaster I am aware of tells us, "recording anything off of this station may be a violation of the artist's copyright". So, back when I was in school, we would tape songs after we requested them, and hope the DJ wouldn't talk all over the beginning of it. Or, buy the album, if we thought the artist's hit was representative of the rest of the album. We then began to see that this was seldom the case. Call it stealing, call it copyright infringement, whatever... it exists and it is not going away.

[SamAdams76]

I especially love the little plastic CDs that cost 25 cents to make that sell for $17.00. Serves the greedy vermin right. If they think all of this is going to work, the RIAA is lost in space.

It's even lower than that. I just bought a stack of 100 blank CDs at Wal-mart for $18. That's 18 cents per CD. And I'm sure they are available for much cheaper wholesale.

I'm an avid music collector and there are hundreds of CDs out there I would love to own. Especially older "catalog" albums. But I just can't justify paying the enormous markup. If the recording industry ever went to a sub-$5 price-point, I'd be buying several CDs a week for probably the rest of my life.

[Hajman]

He still has his product to sell.

Wrong. The person who illegally copied it has diluted the producer's possible future sales.

Actually, he does still have his product to sell. Removing possible future sells doesn't remove the product itself, and isn't illegal. You're not being honest (or logical valid or consistent) with your arguments here. Also, the owner of the IP can't control full use of it, unless a contract has been written up explicitly for the use (for instance, people can sell used music CDs without the owner's expressed permission. This argument was used to try to get pawn shops and such from selling used CDs. It didn't fly).

-The Hajman-

[visualops]

I believe recording off the radio would be considered fair use, unless you begin distributing the recordings.
The RIAA collects a fee from the manufacturer for blank tapes, and there's also a fee attached to blank DAT tapes, to offset "losses". Canada has a fee on CD-Rs too I believe.

[moehoward]

The artist lost any effective control the first time the song was played on the radio.

The proper term is infringement not theft. I deal with "intellectual property" licenses for merchandising.

[Principled]

Anyone defending the "sharing" of copyrighted material against the copyright holder's wishes is defending thieves.

You just refuse to get it. I'm not defending the "sharing". I'm saying laws won't prevent the sharing.

Good grief.

[Hajman]

Look for the definition of "theft" in the dictionary some time.

I have. It's removing a goods/item or service from the owner (in the case of IP, removal can be infered via claiming the IP itself is your own). That's not what's happening here. You're trying to apply 'theft' to a situation which doesn't meet the requirements of theft. No goods/items or services have been removed from the owner. No IP property has been removed (or implicitely removed via claim of ownership of said IP). Can't call a vehicle a car if it has a sail, rudder, outboard motor, and doesn't move on roads. And you can't call copying 'theft' if it doesn't remove the property from the owner in some way.

-The Hajman-

[Rebelbase]

"Challenging teenagers to be rebellious is like daring a snake to bite you."

BUMP!

[discostu]

I haven't seen anything that indicates the majority of sharers are overseas.

As for your hypothetical more than likely that song is in the public domain so it wouldn't be an illegal copy. Recording songs off the radio actually is a copyright violation (if the song is still copyrighted) but it represents so little activity the RIAA really doesn't care. I also have the option of going to used music stores, checking on Amazon very well might have given me a line to it used since they're hooked into e-Bay.

Of course most importantly your hypothetical is completely out of line with the situation. The majority of downloading isn't great old Garry and the Pacemakers tunes, it's modern top 40 albums on the charts today sometimes not even released yet.

I don't think anybody is of the opinion that it will go away. The problem is that the casual bootlegging that we all participated in during our youth has, thanks to modenr technology, expanded to levels never previously imagined. People have the mentality that this is just like tape-swapping in school but it isn't. You can now have thousands of copies of your album downloaded in just a couple of hours, as opposed to the one copy per hour(ish) of manual tape copying. The RIAA is reaping the rewards of their own casualness, a method of violation that they never worried about before is now able to outstrip the most productive swapmeet bootleggers.