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.

[Hajman]

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

Ah, it's good to see someone in the business contribute here. Even though your post wasn't to me, I still thank you for your contribution. Why do you suppose people try to frame it incorrectly as 'theft'? Would they not have a good enough case without such misapplication of terms? Or do you think they're just trying the emotional 'guilt by association' thing? Do many people actually make this flawed argument (that you've seen)?

-The Hajman-

[Principled]

So now you've amended your accusation!

I'm not, after all, defending thieves! I'm just "failing to condemn them" huh??

Well, far be it from me to let another screw up by...

MY ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT THIEVERY - IT'S THAT THE LAW WON'T PREVENT SWAPPING!

My gawd you're stuck on arguing only a certain point of view. Your handlers need some work training you better.

[discostu]

So since the laws can't stop it we should just give up. Yeah that's the kind of attitude that made this country great.

[Rebelbase]

Here's one for you: Back in the day of Napster, I downloaded some oldies of which I had previously purchased as vinyl recordings.

Crimminal or not?

[Principled]

THanks for the reply, moehoward. Another poster and I have asked the question twice with only your reply to read....

[Principled]

...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.

I disagree. I think this is the public position of the RIAA, and it's a position that does them harm.

[Tuxedo]

It's true.. the majority of sharers are indeed overseas. The networks such as KaZaa and iMesh are based overseas, and the majority of files are based in either eastern Europe or the Far East. You can do some IP tracing to verify this, if you know what you are doing. Downloaders are primarily in the US. Since I don't listen to top 40 tunes, I primarily as I told another person, download tunes I have on cassette (of which I have hundreds) or on CD (to save time in ripping them myself) to make MP3 compilations for my two car stereos.

[Principled]

Is it legal to record radio music?

[Question_Assumptions]

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.

What is stolen is pretty fundamental, actually. It is their ability to receive compensation for their effort.

I was recently talking to a local locksmith who told me about a call he answered to help a person who had locked their keys in the car. When the person called, he told them it would cost them $43 to open the car. When he got there, he opened the car and the gentleman said, "That was very little work to open my car. I don't think that was worth $43 dollars." The locksmith's response? He tossed the keys back in the car, locked the door, shut it, and walked away despite the man's promises to pay his fee. He knew the man was going to try to pay him less than $43 and he preferred to take the loss than to encourage such behavior.

Now, using your amazingly strict definition of theft, that only depriving of their property qualifies, the man could have refused to pay the locksmith and that would not have been theft. Indeed, according the the logic of many people who complain that cost is the problem, the man should have been free to pay the locksmith whatever he thought the locksmith's effort was worth. Theft does not simply deal with taking the property of others but in taking benefit from the efforts of others without compensating them and by making it difficult or impossible for them to receive compensation from anyone. This is exactly why the Constitution explicitly grants Congress to make laws protecting inventions and writings.

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.

There are other ways that a song could be stolen. If a band is performing live a local venue -- they pay the rent and insurance for the venue, they pay for the utilities and equipment used in the performance, and they spend two hours of their time playing, and you sneak into the concert hall and watch the performance for free, have you stolen from the band?

When you buy a song, you are buying the right to enjoy a performance of that song, just as if you'd bought a ticket to a concert. Yes, you are listening to a recording that is trivial to duplicate without additional effort but you need to keep in mind all the costs and effort that went into creating that one studio recording.

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.

It is compensating the band for the labor of their performance and the time money they spend writing, producing, recording, and promoting their music. To say that they don't deserve compensation for their labor and expenses but only their property makes you sound very much like the gentleman who didn't think the locksmith deserved $43 because it only took him a few seconds to open the door. If you enjoy the benefits of someone elses labor, they deserve compensation if they seek it, and it is up to them, not you, to set a price on it.

You do believe that people should receive compensation for their labor, do you not? Or do you think that having people do work for you and then refusing to pay them isn't theft?

[bfree]

Maybe you should give up. Technology and youth will prevail. I just logged on to a small sharing site and typed in Cher- 2350 items on that site alone right now. This isn't even one of the big three sites. Do you really think that suing all these people will increase sales of music? I certainly don't. I think the backlash will be severe for the music business.

[discostu]

Normally I react derissively to the hypothetical game but I actually like this question. The answer is: it depends and sort of.

If no longer own the LPs or any other legal version of the music then yes it's criminal.

If you do still own it then we're in an interesting gray area. Technically that's a bootleg copy, a copy made available by someone in violation of copyright. BUT by the current accepted standards of fair use it's perfectly legal for you to have a backup copy of the material, there's an assumption that you'd be making it not illegally downloading, but once you have it the why's and how's become rather immaterial. It's still basically illegal because going to the swapmeet and buying a Mexican bootleg of the album would also still be illegal, but it simply wouldn't be worth the hassle of proving it's an illegitimate copy of something you could have legitimately copied.

Of course if they were real oldies they might have been in the public domain which would mean it was 100% legal regardless of all other circumstances.

[Hajman]

Is it legal to record radio music?

I'm not exactly sure what the copyright laws say about that. As far as personal experience goes, I haven't heard of any law being enforced to keep people from recording radio music. Since this deals with IP specifics, it it's probably a better question for someone like moehoward. However, imho, I wouldn't believe it's illegal to do so. I think it'd fall under the same category as recording TV shows. Not sure though. What say you, moehoward?

-The Hajman-

[moehoward]

Ah, it's good to see someone in the business contribute here. Even though your post wasn't to me, I still thank you for your contribution. Why do you suppose people try to frame it incorrectly as 'theft'? Would they not have a good enough case without such misapplication of terms? Or do you think they're just trying the emotional 'guilt by association' thing? Do many people actually make this flawed argument (that you've seen)?

You are correct. It seems the escalation to "theft" is sexier than "infringer". And it is common on other boards as well. Funny, not so much on the PC user boards.

When Apple started it's service, most of the posters on the Apple boards were bragging about how many songs they had purchased. Then came the articles saying Apple users were willing to over-pay for anything.

[discostu]

That's the public position the filesharers have taken since their forebears the hackers came up with the single most idiotic phrase ever used to defend a crime: information wants to be free man. Their actions and many of their statements show quite clearly that the want free stuff and the vagueries of copyright laws aren't allowed to get in the way of their quest for free stuff.

[discostu]

Yeah just like the youth movement prevailed in the 60s and ended the war in Viet Nam.

You're mistaking actions to one goal with another goal. Going after the sharers isn't about increasing sales, it's about decreasing bootlegs.

[Principled]

So since the laws can't stop it we should just give up.

No, that's STUPID.

The way to slow swapping is for the industry to change its model to any of an infinite possibilities. Three possibilities (one of which I liked a lot) are on this thread. Apple is trying another one.

[discostu]

How does that stop the swapping? All Apple is doing is selling the music one song at a time, yeah there's a little security on the file to inhibit sharing but that won't be hard to get rid of.

Don't mix up selling the songs on the internet with slowing swapping. They aren't even close to the same thing.

[Sofa King]

I think people are ignoring the biggest difference between swapping cassette tapes and digital music. Take cassette tape with something on it. Copy it. Now make a copy of the copy. Now make a copy of that copy. Notice anything? Now take a CD. Rip an MP3 off of it. Now copy the MP3. Now copy that copy. Repeat about a dozen times. Guess what? It still sounds the same. There is almost no degredation from the song being converted into an MP3, and once that's done the copies are identical.

This lack of a limiting factor on how much it gets reproduced is part of the problem.

Also, "because they can't stop us" is a very poor defense for behavior.

[Hajman]

What is stolen is pretty fundamental, actually. It is their ability to receive compensation for their effort.

In many cases this would be true (as in your locksmith example, where a specific service was made by the locksmith, but compensation wasn't returned). However, not with copying songs on your computer (or copying a service, for that matter. For example, would it have been illegal for the man to get someone else to unlock his door for free? That removes potential value in the service performed, yes, but it doesn't remove the value of the actual service, and removing potential value isn't illegal, and isn't considered theft). With a copied song, the IP isn't stolen, and the materials and services used in creation of the copy isn't the owners (it's the property of that who copied it). It may (and probably does) create a copyright violation if you hand it over to another person, but it doesn't actually remove the service, goods, or the actual value of a service performed or a goods created or redistributed. It only removes a potential value, which isn't illegal in itself.

-The Hajman-

[BOBWADE]

I guess every college student that uses the library for reference material and refers to the material in their college papers is stealing as well? They are taking quotes and content from copyrighted material without once ever paying for it. Better throw these students in jail!