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.

[Cultural Jihad]

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.

Just for the record, no one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to go out and buy CDs.

[Principled]

You are the guy that called copyright law a bad law at the beginning of this thread.

Go back and read it....I said it's bad if it prevented me from sharing my music with my wife.

You're also the guy that said swapping happened because the RIAA charges too much.

Not so. I said that swapping happened because the difference between the store price and the "free" price were too great. Swapping would decrease (that's the goal) by shortening this gap.

Your papaphrasing shows your intent.

So, back to the drawing board. BTW, stu, you have already admitted (in this very thread) that you were wrong to assert that I was defending thieves. Are you changing positions, AGAIN???

[discostu]

I see so now legal behavior isn't convenient. More sad sack excuses. When you can accept that they're nothing more than petty thieves you'll understand why the iTune model won't change the situation. Not that I'm against it, I think it's pretty cool for a completely different kind of music buyer than myself, but it's not a solution to the bootlegging problem. Not even close.

[Question_Assumptions]

Ultimately, I just want to be able to compensate the parties involved in creating a recording for their time, effort, and expenses.

I do, however, think that copyright protection should be for a "limited time", as specificied in the Constitution. It shouldn't take your lifetime an a millenia to recovern reasonable compensation for your creative efforts.

I'm also not sure that every word written or ever uttered deserves copyright protection. I'm not saying it doesn't get silly. But I do think that musicians are essentially selling the fruits of their labor and they deserve some sort of compensation for their efforts.

[Principled]

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.

Well said. But in disco's eyes, you're defending thieves.

[Hajman]

If the other man "borrowed" the locksmiths tools and returned them after using them, yes.

What if the other man had his own tools, and simply copied the service (say if the man refusing to pay for the service did it himself after going to the store and buying his own tools?) This is what's happening with file copying.

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?

In that case, you'd be using a goods that's in the ownership of someone else (the chair, the concert theater). With music copying, this doesn't happen. The music copy doesn't belong to the owner (only the actual song does, which falls under IP). That's why pawn shops are allowed to sell copies of the music (used CDs) without returning an extra usage fee back to the original owner.

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?

If you charged for the pill you made, it wouldn't be theft (no goods or services have actually been removed from the owner). It would, however, be a big time IP violation. However, if you took that formula, then claimed it was yours and sold it as such, then it'd be theft (because the service would have been infered to be removed from the owner via your claim of it as your own IP. A simular thing happens in indentity theft, where the thief claims that your indentity is his own).

But the effort put into writing, performing, recording, and promoting that song is benefitted from without compensation.

Actually, it's not. If you bought the CD, the compensation has been paid. What you do with that copy is now up to you (again, the argument could be made that re-selling the copy creates, or shifts in this case, a benefit without compensation. This argument has already been attempted, and rejected). It falls under removing a potental value, vs. removing an actual value. Creating a copy of the song removes a potential value from the owner of the song (removing potential compensation). It doesn't hold up as theft. Only copyright violation.

It benefits from the labor of someone without compensating them, despite the fact that they desire compensation.

Again, it's the "pawn shop reselling the CD" argument, which has been rejected.

I understand what you're trying to get at. And I think you have some good arguments. However, I believe that they fall under copyright infringment only. Potential value was lost, yes, and copying of an IP has taken place, but nothing has actually been removed from the owner. If someone claims the song as their own and tries to distribute it, I'll be with you applying 'thief' to that person. Otherwise, the definition of 'theft' just doesn't apply here. However, copyright infringment has. You already have a good, solid argument there.

-The Hajman-

[moehoward]

Some bands will still only list entire cd's at the iTunes store. The most popular downloads are singles.

Keep in mind many bands still refuse to sell through clubs like Columbia House. Because their percentage is reduced by sales and introductory offers.

[discostu]

So you went out of your way to make an inaccurate attack on copyright law, but the fact that your example was wrong means it wasn't really an attack and you weren't really trying to say copyright law was bad? Am I properly interpreting the Clinton spinmachine here?

So when you said the music is stolen because free is cheaper than any price that can ever be charged that wasn't an excuse ofr thieves that was simply typing for the joy of seeing characters appear on the screen?

I'm beginning to understand. Anything you say that's BS, just plain wrong and easily refuted you actually meant the refutation not what you said. Anything you say that isn't refuted is actually what you meant.

You sure you don't want to run your position by some focus groups to see how it sells on the coast?

[Principled]

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

Indeed it is technology itself help solve this. Not laws.

[discostu]

The difference is nobody is trying to claim that Columbia House reduces bootlegging. If iTunes really reduced bootlegging there'd be no reason for bands to quibble (maybe on the singles vs CD thing, I know a lot of bands that are about the CD taking the singles out of context is completely missing the point).

[Jhoffa_]

I see so now legal behavior isn't convenient.

I think it is a hassle to go to Best Buy, rummage around and find a CD with 1 song out of 20 that I like, then pay way too much for it.

It's so much of a hassle I actually stopped listening to music entirely. I didn't start stealing it, I just dropped out all together.

So, I think the apple thing is great, I might even start buying music again because of it.

I do agree though, that "sharing" is theft and that the apple thing isn't a solution to theft.. But if it lets me download music and burn it LEGALLY, then I will give it a shot.

If it's as good as it sounds, just got back a customer who would have otherwise never spent a dime on any of their products.

[Principled]

Ultimately, I just want to be able to compensate the parties involved in creating a recording for their time, effort, and expenses.

Of course. We are fans. We like the bands. We want them to continue making music. We want to show our appreciaton. Why someone would think that a music fan wants to hurt the musicians is beyond me.

[rwfromkansas]

True that they paid the copyright fee. How much is it though?

Unless it is an expensive fee, I still consider Kazaa to be the same as a library in effect.

The copies are not as good as the original either and when you go buy a CD-RW drive or a CD-R disc, you pay a tax to the RIAA. When you download a song, it costs you internet fees.

It isn't really "something for nothing."

[Hajman]

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

No I'm not. I'm assuming that the swappers are willing to pay a fair price under a fair business model. And the fact that people do buy from places like what Mac has to offer, and that swapping files creates free advertising for new artists, allowing them to become known in the music community, are just two examples of this. You're only looking at a very small section of the basic economic model that drives things like this (specifically, price). People are willing to pay for convenience, quality and loyalty. This much has already been seen, and not just in music. More then price drives consumers. Discounting everything but price isn't looking at a very accurate economic model.

-The Hajman-

[Principled]

So you went out of your way to make an inaccurate attack on copyright law

No, actually it was a question, not an attack. You had posted it was illegal to copy and give to anyone... I replied, "I can't copy some tunes for my wife's road trip?". Further I didn't go out of my way. I was on FR already.

[Jhoffa_]

No I'm not. I'm assuming that the swappers are willing to pay a fair price under a fair business model.

So, otherwise they will just steal?

You know, there's a nice sail boat I have had my eye on.. but I think the price is unfair and unreasonable.

Hummm.

[moehoward]

The big labels went ape when major music retailers started selling/buying used CD's and cassettes. Full page ads were taken out in Billboard magazine against the practice.

The RIAA will NEVER begin to recover even their legal expenses by harassing file sharers. They will turn on ISP's and music re-sellers.

[Principled]

So when you said the music is stolen because free is cheaper than any price that can ever be charged that wasn't an excuse ofr thieves

No, it was part of the reason swapping is so bad. I'm not excusing it - please show me where you think I am doing so - I am providing motivation for taking actions that would reduce swapping.

[discostu]

I'm not saying iTunes isn't cool. When it's available for Windows there's a whole pile of one-hit wonder songs I intend to buy (which got a little bigger watching VH1's Great One Hit Wonders this afternoon). Though for the most part I'm a big fan of CDs, I find that with my music the "popular" song is usually the worst on the album and look forward to those hidden gems only fans get to hear, I still see a legit use for iTunes and I think it will be highly lucrative and it wasn't smart of the RIAA to resist that model for as long as they did. If nothing else this was painfully obvious as the replacement for the 45, something the CD single has never managed to achieve, actually if I was a record exec I'd use this to bring back the B-side, $1 for the single $1.25 for the single and an otherwise unavailable single I bet it would sell pretty well.

[discostu]

Whatever dude. I now know that you don't actually mean a word you say. You can go away and hassle somebody who hasn't learned that you aren't to be trusted now.