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]

You're assuming that the illegal swappers are willing to pay anything. They're behavior shows your assumption to be wrong. If they didn't want to pay RIAA prices they could buy used, or they could wait for the price to come down, or they could buy on cassette, or they could switch to discount stores that rarely charge RIAA prefered prices. But they're not willing to do those things, instead they steal it, because they want something for nothing.

[BOBWADE]

I was just pointing out how rediculous this argument is getting to be. The genie is out of the bottle and now the RIAA wants to shove in a cork. They should have seen this coming a long time ago. Now they bawl because the can't control the internet file swappers. They are just to short sighted and greedy to turn this into a revenue generating machine. The system is in place for direct marketing a product with nearly zero expense after the artist create the music. They could really profit from this if they weren't so greedy.

[moehoward]

Public Libraries also offer CD's Videos etc etc. These are generally donated to the library. So in effect the person that checks it out is infringing.

The Napster hearings on CSPAN were very informative, and the Library argument was used. The reps from the RIAA did not like the comparison.

AFAIK radio copying is OK under fair use. No different than recording a show for later viewing on your VCR.

[discostu]

It doesn't matter if there's economic damage. Copyrighted material is being stolen, blatantly and in massive volumes.

[Question_Assumptions]

For example, would it have been illegal for the man to get someone else to unlock his door for free?

If the other man "borrowed" the locksmiths tools and returned them after using them, yes. Without the band originally performing and recording the song, you'd have an empty sound file. You can't take the original performance, and that the recording contains the essential value of the performance, out of the equation. If you sneak into a concert, is the theft that you occuplied a seat that you didn't pay for or that you listened to music you didn't pay for? And would you even be sneaking into the concert hall if there were no performance only to enjoy the lights, the seat, and the air conditioning?

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).

But it is benefitting from the labor and the essential value of that labor without reproducing that labor yourself. If a medical lab spends $5 billion dollars researching and testing a drug, do you think that the value of a pill lies only in the value of the specific chemicals in that pill? If you are handed a copy of the formula for the drug, don't you think it would be theft to benefit from those $5 billion dollars of research and testing so that you could charge a 10 cents a pill, the actual chemical value of each pill?

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).

But the effort put into writing, performing, recording, and promoting that song is benefitted from without compensation. The music sharer did not expend that effort, the band did. And without that effort, there would be nothing to copy. If I ask a teenager to mow my lawn with some gas that I provide and then refuse to pay them, I haven't stolen anything physical from them. I haven't taken away their ability to mow someone else's lawn. I haven't stolen their lawnmower. I haven't deprived them of any material benefits. But I have benefitted from their labor without compensation.

Without the labor of the musicians, there would be no music. The labor was exerted specifically to produce that music. You are benefitting from the fruits of that labor and, in the absence of that labor, there would be nothing for you to benefit from. So why doesn't the musician deserve compensation for their labor? There labor does not produce any tangible product. The sole value of it lies in listening to and enjoying it and it is that value that you are taking advantage of -- without compensation.

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.

It benefits from the labor of someone without compensating them, despite the fact that they desire compensation. Using your strict definitions, if a recording studio employee were to make a copy of a prerelease recording of an album, put it out on the Internet, and, as a result, the band only sold 10 legitimate albums to pay for thousands of dollars in studio time and thousands of hours of work, no real theft would have taken place. Something doesn't seem fundamentally wrong with that to you?

[Cultural Jihad]

I, too, am a big fan of technology merging with or reformulating our laws, if the industry wants to. As you have pointed out, it is in their own best interest to move with the times. But one may not rip them off if they decide otherwise.

[Principled]

I haven't defended thieves, and I will not. THe law is the law.

For the sixth time now - maybe you'll get it - my assertion does not relate to legality of swapping. My assertion is that laws will not slow or stop swapping and may even increase it; further, there are models that WILL slow swapping. The guy who downloaded 57 songs was just one guy out of all those who have downloaded over a million songs. Why do you become so emotionally heated because I my idea to stop sharing is different than yours?

Now, if you can somehow tell me why that assertion defends thieves, have at it! lol

[Sofa King]

Refer to my other post:

"Because they can't stop us" is a poor excuse for bad behavior.

[Tuxedo]

Absolutely... most of the people blasting the sharers have never even used the services such as KaZaa, iMesh, Grokster, etc. For instance, from using it, I can inform you a few things that a pay-for-use service could help"

1) Bad copies of songs (skips, premature cutoffs, long dead times before song begins)

2) Songs not titled correctly, or containing incorrect info (album title, length, quality)

3) File names that do not match actual content.

4) Looking for songs, waiting for them to appear online.

5) Looking for songs ripped at a high quality.

6) Songs not normalized consistently (differing audio levels)

These are the chances one takes to get a freebie. If you promised a user they could get a song for say $0.25 ripped at 128 bits, at a consistent volume, and guaranteed to be the genuine item, then these networks would begin to fade away.

[rwfromkansas]

The RIAA idiots aren't even going after the downloaders, just the sharers.

Until they do, folks like me will not be scared off from downloading.

[discostu]

You are the guy that called copyright law a bad law at the beginning of this thread. You're also the guy that said swapping happened because the RIAA charges too much.

Defending thieves.

Now you're changing your position and claiming you never defended thieves. That's a lie. You know it. I know it. Anyone that's read the thread knows it.

[Hajman]

Ooh one guy with 57 songs, yeah that's really slowed things down. BTW do we know if this person illegally copied songs before? If they did before have they stopped now that iTunes is up? If the answer to either of those question is no then they provide zero evidence to support your claim.

Are you claiming that people who are swapping now wouldn't buy the music if availiable in a more consumer-friendly model? That would be incorrect. Many people swap because the current model is unfriendly, and the music industry doesn't want to change it. Many people will buy with a more friendly model. Price isn't the only issue. Convenience, quality and loyalty are also variables in the consumer equation with music. You get the more friendly model, and people will buy, because they'll want something that's more convenient, that has better quality then downloaded music, and because they want their favorite artists to be happy and make more music. The consumer wants to define the goods and services. I don't agree that file swapping is the correct way to get things changed, but with the music industry, it seems to be the only way (and the music industry still isn't getting it. If they don't adapt to consumer wants, they won't stay up for much longer. Basic economics will take over, and the model will shift to online services such as the one Mac has, and the artists will shift to those that arn't afraid of the internet model).

-The Hajman-

[Principled]

You're assuming that the illegal swappers are willing to pay anything. They're behavior shows your assumption to be wrong.

THey haven't had the opportunity to buy but one way- the same way they've been buying since before the personal computer was invented.

Used stuff can be damaged. Used stuff is inconvenient. THe apple thing handles those problems nicely... and is selling well.

There is nothing to indicate that swappers would refuse to buy under an alternate method. Your assertions to the contrary are empty.

[discostu]

It's a matter of going after the least number of people with the biggest effect. There are thousands of downloaders for every sharer. Taking one sharer off the network will have a much bigger impact on the downloaders and the entire supply chain than taking out thousands of downloaders, and it's easier.

[Principled]

But one may not rip them off if they decide otherwise.

How about "But one should not rip them off if they decide otherwise."....after all, with technology FAR outpacing anyone's ability to stop swapping with statutes, many may indeed do so.

[BOBWADE]

I just think its funny that fair use allowed for limited sharing until the digital age came about. Now the music folks are crying foul about how easy it is to use their products without paying for the use. Its seems ironic that for years they had the buyers by the short hairs and milked them for every penny by overcharging for compact discs. Now everyone has the ability in their computer and realizes that the industry was overcharging everyone for the "cd" technology. I think its kind of funny that some people are now recovering their losses from an industry that gigged them in the a$$ for the last 20 years.

[Question_Assumptions]

Yes, I believe services should be compensated. However, in the case of the music copy, there was no service or labor performed by the owner in the creation of the copy of the song, nor in the creation or copy of the medium involved.

When you go to a concert, the price of a single ticket does not equal the compensation that the band receives for the performance. The compensation for the performance is divided between the attendees such that the cost paid by each attendee is substantially less than the total compensation paid to the band. When you buy a CD, you are not paying for a single peformance and all of the associated production costs. You are paying for that performance and those costs divided by the number of CDs sold, with various risk factors also included in. The labor performed was the performance and all of the associated recording, production, distribution, and promotion costs as well as risk factors associated with paying all of these costs up front without any guarantee of compensation. Do you think that a band simply picks up a bunch of borrowed instruments and the music magically transfers itself, in final form, onto the CD at no cost?

The song itself was created by the artist, but not the copy. Thus it falls under IP violation, but not theft violation.

What you are stealing, again, is the artists time and effort and the recording company's time, effort, and risk compensation. If calling it a "violation" makes you feel better, you can dance on the head of a pin all you want but, ultmately, you are robbing the band and the company that put up the risk capital for the recording of compensation for their efforts. It costs a great deal of money to record an album, far beyond simply picking up some instruments and playing. The song has to be written. The band has to practice. They may play dozens and dozens of takes before getting it right. It has to be mixed. It has to be finalized. It has to be compiled into a CD. All of the people involved in this process -- writers, musicians, recording studio staff, and even corporate suits expect to get compensated for their contribution based on the sale of CDs and divide their compensation across the number of CDs they expect to sell. If they sell 1 CD, the cost would be six or seven digits. That money has to come from somewhere. And if you are enjoying the music without helping to pay for that bill, then you are benefitting from that effort and expense without compensation. A "violation"? Mabye. But it sure looks like stiffing the locksmith or the boy with the lawnmower to me.

[discostu]

Are the songs available by iTune being downloaded less often illegally than songs not available on iTune? If not then my position is correct, if so then yours is. If your position was correct do you honestly think there would be a single band or record company reluctant to have their stuff on iTune? Why would anybody want to pass up an opportunity to both increase revenue and decrease theft of their product?

I think there are too many law abiding citizens on this thread. You don't understand the mind of sharers. Go spend some time in the warez newsgroups. A lot of these people don't actually want the item, they want the joy of stealing. As for the others only time will tell, so far iTune hasn't had the slightest impact on illegal file sharing, it might be too early to tell, but I don't think so.

[CharacterCounts]

Your analogy is false on more than one level, but plainly you see the difference between Joe buying a new blade and Joe borrowing a blade from a neighbor...

The more appropriate analogy would be Joe going into the neighbors garage, without the neighbors permission or consent, and borrowing his blade.

[Cultural Jihad]

Fair enough. But be advised that the technology can also track the thievery as well as facilitate it.